Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

BARNET DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL [Lords].

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That in the case of the Barnet District Gas and Water Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been deposited."—[The Chairman of Waifs and Means.]

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: May I ask the Chairman of Ways and Means if the amended prints referred to in this Motion have now been deposited in the Vote Office? I have the Bill here.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): Yes, Sir; I understand that they have.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Wang and Means.]

Mr. MACLEAN: I should the to thank the Chairman of Ways and Means for sending me a draft copy of this Bill. I have withdrawn my objection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Glasgow Goldsmiths Company Order

Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISAELED OFFICERS.

Major COHEN: 1 and 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions (1), whether any awards in payment to disabled officers who have lost limbs in the service of the country and are in receipt of wound pensions plus half-pay are being reviewed; whether any have been reduced; and, if so, on what grounds;
(2), whether he is considering the reduction of disabled officers' pensions; and, if so, what sum it is estimated will be saved annually, and the number of officers affected?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): No general reduction of disabled officers' pensions or of pensions of other ranks is either in process or in contemplation. I am glad to say that the majority of cases are now in receipt of final awards. The exceptional provision alluded to by my hon. and gallant Friend, by which under the Royal Warrants of 1917 and 1920 a temporary officer may in certain circumstances be awarded a specially favourable pension in the form of half-pay in addition to a wound pension, instead of the ordinary disability retired pay, is subject to the condition, imposed by the Army Council Pay Warrant of 1919, that the earning capacity of the officer must be shown to be seriously affected by his wound or injury. To ensure that this condition continues to be fulfilled, cases of this class have necessarily to be reviewed by my Department from time to time. I have no record of the total number of cases which have been adversely affected in consequence of this review, because, while in some cases the officer is placed on the normal rate of disability retired pay because the governing condition of the previous award is found to be no longer fulfilled, in other cases the more favourable award is restored on its being shown by the officer that his earning capacity is now seriously affected by his wound.

Major COHEN: In view of the difficulty of discussing this matter by question and
answer, I beg leave to state that I will raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

GORDON HIGHLANDERS (PRIVATE J. M. PEEBLES).

Mr. MACLEAN: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the parents of Private J. M. Peebles, No. S/12376, Gordon Highlanders, who was killed in the War, were awarded a pension in respect thereof; that an investigator visited them on the 19th November, and on 24th November a letter was received by them intimating that the pension would terminate on 17th January, 1927; whether he can state what was the income of this family in 1914 and the income now; and whether, in view of the small income at present received by these people, he will reconsider his decision and continue payment of the pension?

Major TRYON: The only pension which could be granted in any circumstances in this case would be one based on need. This class of pension is determined, not by comparison with pre-War income, but by reference solely to the circumstances of the applicant at the present time. In the present instance I understand that the income of the applicants, which has increased since the pension previously in issue was granted, is now slightly over 32s. a week, and in these circumstances the applicants are not eligible for a pension based on need. Should the applicant's circumstances change for the worse the case would, of course, be reconsidered.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that, with a family of this size, the Minister of Pensions considers that an income of 31s. 6d. a week, from which rent and rates have to be deducted, does not constitute a just right to a pension on behalf of a son who was killed in the War, and which has been in operation since 1919, I understand?

Major TRYON: The limit which forms the basis of this calculation is one which was fixed by the late Government.

Mr. MACLEAN: What is the limit?

PARKHURST PRISON.

Colonel DAY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will cause, an inquiry to be held regarding the administration of His Majesty's prison, Parkhurst, relative to recent disturbances?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): As I stated yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), the reports of disturbance that appeared last week were unfounded. There is no ground for directing the holding of any inquiry.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many disturbances have occurred during the last 12 months, and whether it is on account of tightening up the discipline at Parkhurst?

Captain HACKING: There has been nothing unusual at all in this prison. There are frequently minor disturbances at any prison, but there has been nothing at all unusual in this case.

ALSATIAN DOGS.

Colonel DAY: 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the recent number of attacks upon pedestrians by dogs of the Alsatian breed, any further action is being taken by his Department with a view to public safety?

Captain HACKING: My right hon. Friend has no power to take any special action in this matter, and, on the information before him, he sees no reason to suppose that the ordinary law as to dogs is not sufficient for the public safety.

Colonel DAY: Have there not been numerous complaints to the police lately about the savagery of these dogs?

Captain HACKING: That is not in connection with the Alsatian breed.

Colonel DAY: I particularly refer to the Alsatian breed; have there been many complaints to the police lately?

Captain HACKING: Not to my knowledge, but I think I had better have notice of that question.

Mr. PALING: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman of opinion that the public safety is more menaced by the Alsatian breed than by any other breed?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC.

CARS (THEFTS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 9.
asked the Home Secretary the number of motor cars reported to the Metropolitan police as having been stolen within the London police area within each of the completed 11 months of the present year, and how many have been recovered?

Captain HACKING: As the answer consist of a large number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:




Number of motor cars and motor cycles




Stolen.
Recovered.


January
…
65
53


February
…
54
47


March
…
79
66


April
…
52
42


May
…
102
70


June
…
94
60


July
…
74
62


August
…
78
53


September
…
95
82


October
…
100
71


November
…
104
85




897
691

EADLIGHTS.

Colonel DAY: 18.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the numerous accidents that have recently happened in the Metropolitan police district through the difference of opinion existing between motorists as to the advisability of dimming or turning out their headlights while in the suburbs; and will he consider giving instructions to the Metropolitan police to make this practice uniform in the Metropolitan area?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir. The police would have no power to enforce any such uniform practice, even if it were desirable to require it in every case.

Colonel DAY: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman had his attention called to the remarks of a learned Judge this week on this practice, and would he consider introducing legislation either one way or the other, either that all motorists should have their lights out or all dim them in London?

Captain HACKING: My attention has been called to the observations to which the hon. Member refers, but I cannot promise any legislation at present.

Captain BRASS: Would it be possible for the Home Office to issue Regulations forbidding the use of headlights in well-lighted streets in the Metropolis?

Captain HACKING: No; I do not think we possess that power at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS ACTS (CHRISTMAS WEEK).

Mr. TAYLOR: 10.
asked the Home Secretary if he proposes to suspend the General Closing Order under the Shops Act., 1920, in the week prior to Christmas; and whether the statutory half-holiday, under the Shops Acts, 1912 and 1913, will be suspended in both of the two weeks prior to Christmas?

Captain HACKING: My right hon. Friend made an Order last. month suspending the operation of the General Early Closing Order from Friday, 17th December, to Friday, 24th December, both days inclusive. There is no power to suspend the obligation on shopkeepers to close for the weekly half-holiday in accordance with the Shops Act, 1912, but, under Section 4 (5) of that Act, if a shopkeeper closes for the whole of a Bank Holiday, and the Bank Holiday does not fall on the day fixed for the weekly half-holiday, he can remain open either on the half-holiday before or on the half-holiday after the Bank Holiday. The effect this year, when Christmas Day falls on a Saturday, is that a shopkeeper who closes for his weekly half-holiday on any day other than Saturday need not give a half-holiday in Christmas week if he closes for the whole of Christmas Day. He must, however, close for a half-holiday in the week ending 18th December.

Mr. TAYLOR: Have the Home Office drawn the attention of local authorities to these matters? Have they issued a Circular?

Captain HACKING: I think I ought to have notice of that question, but the reply which I have given makes the matter perfectly clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL CONSTABULARY (MEDAL).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the question of issuing a medal or some adequate expression of the nation's obligations, other than a mere letter of thanks, to the members of the Special Constabulary in recognition of their services during times of emergency?

Captain HACKING: My hon. Friend may not he aware that a Special Constabulary Medal was instituted by Royal Warrant in 1919. I will send him a copy of the Warrant setting out the conditions on which the medal is awarded.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to ask if people are going to get this medal, is it a clay medal?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is the cost of these medals?

Captain HACKING: With regard to the last supplementary question, I am afraid I cannot say. With regard to the first, this medal is a proper medal, and is given for very meritorious work.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Have the Department taken into consideration the particular form and design of this medal? Will it be modelled on the Iron Cross?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHARITIES (REGISTRATION).

Mr. HANNON: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to introduce legislation in the forthcoming Session of Parliament to provide for the compulsory registration of charities on the same principle as that which underlies the War Charities Act, 1916, and the Blind Persons Act?

Captain HACKING: The whole question is at present under the consideration of an Inter-Departmental Committee, and I propose to await their Report.

Mr. HANNON: Has my hon. and gallant Friend had brought to his notice eases in which accounts are not published by these charities?

Captain HACKING: Yes, Sir; many cases have been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend, and that is the reason why he has referred the matter to a Departmental Committee.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when some decision will be come to, in view of the fact that in the case of some of these charities many thousands of pounds are collected the whole of which goes in expenses?

Captain HACKING: A decision will be reached as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

EMERGENCY REGULATIONS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will furnish a Return showing the number of prosecutions and convictions under the Emergency Powers Act and Regulations, classified according to the nature of the offence, for the period from 16th October?

Captain HACKING: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Tuesday to a similar question by the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton). A final return will be prepared as soon as all figures are available.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will it be possible to include the actual words of the charge, where the charge relates to treasonable speech?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir, I do not think it would he possible: it would make the return too unwieldy.

Captain BENN: Have so many people been convicted for the use of such language?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir, but the reports are so large, as people have said so much, that it would be very difficult to publish them.

POST OFFICE (PROPAGANDA LEAFLETS).

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on a number of occasions during the course of the mining lock-out propaganda leaflets issued by the coalowners and Unionist Associations were distributed from the post office at Chryston, Lanarkshire; whether the postal officials in so
doing were acting on his instructions; and, if not, what action his Department proposes to take in the matter?

Viscount WOLMER: I have no knowledge of this matter, but am having inquiry made and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

LONDON COAL MERCHANTS FEDERATION.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 69.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will publish full records of his official conversations and correspondence with the London Coal Merchants Federation since January, 1925?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): No, Sir. I do not think that the publication of these documents would serve any useful purpose.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it not be a useful purpose for the Government to dispel the suspicion, if that be possible, that the right hon. Gentleman was very partial to the coal merchants?

Colonel LANE FOX: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will ask me any questions, in an effort to dispel that suspicion, I will do my best to answer him.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is not this the best effort I can make to help the right hon. Gentleman to dispel the suspicion? What is the objection to publishing the document?

Colonel LANE FOX: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can do better than that.

IMPORTED COAL.

Sir F. WISE: 70.
asked the Secretary for Mines the tonnage of foreign coal imported into Britain during the industrial trouble and the approximate average price?

Colonel LANE FOX: About 19,500,000 'tons of foreign coal arrived at ports in Great Britain from the commencement of the stoppage to 4th December. I regret that I am unable to state the average price.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can my right hon. Friend state approximately the amount in hand now?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, because the greater part of this coal is in the
hands of private undertakings and persons. The Government coal has been disposed of.

Mr. GRAHAM: Is it possible for us to be given the price?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, the prices vary over a long period of time and they differ in different circumstances.

Mr. TAYLOR: What proportion of this coal came from Germany?

Colonel LANE FOX: I cannot say offhand. If the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper, I will see if I can get the information.

BOYS' HOURS, NORTHUMBERLAND AND DURHAM.

Mr. RICHARDSON: 71.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware of the hours of work fixed for boys of from 14 to 18 years of age at some mines in the counties of Northumberland and Durham; that boys descend at 3 a.m. in the first shift and ascend at 3 a.m. in the third shift, and work from 10.30 p.m. to 7 a.m. in a fourth shift; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to prevent the employers fixing such hours for children in mines, especially viewing the fact that boys of that age are protected in other industries?

Colonel LANE FOX: If the hon. Member supplies me with particulars of any cases in which it is alleged that the law is being broken, I will have them investigated.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I am not saying that the law has been broken, but I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman the conditions which are obtaining at the present time and asking him if he will do anything?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir; if the hon. Member will furnish me with full particulars, I will see what can be done.

Mr. PALING: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to convey this information to the Prime Minister, so that he may reflect upon the results of the Eight Hours Act?

SUPPLIES, ISLE OF WIGHT.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 72.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the communication made by his Department to
the Isle of Wight Coal Emergency Committee has brought about any reduction in the price of 95s. per ton charged to the residents, as against 70s. in Portsmouth; and whether, in order to counteract the retailing of foreign coal at speculative rates, he will take steps to see that British coal is available in the Isle of Wight?

Colonel LANE FOX: I am informed that British coal is now available in the Isle of Wight, and that the price is being reduced to 70s. per ton as from today.

COAL DISPUTE (SETTLEMENT TERMS).

Mr. OLIVER: 73.
asked the Secretary for Mines what steps have been taken in pursuance of his assurance that in any settlement of the coal dispute the Government would endeavour to see that there was no victimisation on either side?

Colonel LANE FOX: The Government have taken no such steps. The hon. Member will remember that, after the date of the assurance to which he refers, decisions were taken within the industry resulting in the Government having no part in settling the terms or conditions upon which work is resumed.

Mr. OLIVER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that in itself would justify the Government taking no steps to stop the victimisation which is taking place?

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Gentleman's question referred to a particular answer which I gave in this House. Since then, as I say, the conditions have entirely altered.

Mr. OLIVER: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to issue an appeal to the coalowners to stop the victimisation which is taking place in the coal industry and so help to establish some foundation for peace?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement that victimisation is taking place?

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one colliery in Durham men who were wounded in the great War have been refused work?

Major COLFOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, in his opinion, the chief culprits with regard to
victimisation are not the Miners' Federation or the Miners' Union who have victimised consistently those men who have been loyal to their employers?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are giving their opinions.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

CASUAL WARDS (SLEEPING OUT).

Major OWEN: 14.
asked the Home Secretary the number of convictions, for the last year of which he has statistics, for sleeping out and similar offences, for larcenies by tramps or destitute wayfarers, for workhouse offences generally, and for offences connected with the casual wards, respectively?

Captain HACKING: As regards all classes of paupers detained in Poor Law institutions in England and Wales, 553 were convicted in 1924 of misbehaviour and 134 of stealing or destroying workhouse clothes. As regards offences under. the Vagrancy Acts, 805 persons were convicted by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in 1924, of sleeping out. Larcenies committed by tramps and wayfarers are not distinguished in the returns from larcenies by others.

Mr. RICHARDSON: In view of the terrible shortage of accommodation in casual wards, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see if some provision can be made, or withdraw the Act altogether?

Captain HACKING: The next question on the Paper, which deals with this subject, will perhaps clear the matter up.

Major OWEN: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange for an Inter-Departmental Committee of the. Home Office and the Ministry of Health to consider what improvements can be made in casual wards so as to encourage tramps to enter them rather than steal?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. I am not aware of any increase of crime committed by tramps, and I do not think that at the present time the appointment of such a Committee as is suggested would serve any useful purpose. The condition of casual wards has received my constant attention. A special survey
of casual wards was made in 1923, and all such wards are regularly inspected. Where defects have been brought to light, steps have been taken to secure that they shall he remedied. Substantial improvements have in fact been effected, and are still being made.

Major OWEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a case which occurred quite recently at Stamford, where a man was convicted for stealing because he wished to be imprisoned rather than go to the casual ward?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not remember the case. It seems to be a tribute to the prison.

Major OWEN: Is it not at the same time a condemnation of the casual ward?

Mr. VIANT: 40.
asked the Minister of Health what were the most recent dates when the inspector of casual wards inspected Stamford and the neighbouring casual wards when the tramps were in bed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot, at such short notice, give the information the hon. Member requires, but I will communicate with him.

Mr. ROBINSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Health which are the casual wards available for men on the tramp searching for work in the West Riding of Yorkshire; and how many permit of the men leaving after breakfast to assist them to obtain employment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are 29 casual wards open in this county, and I will send the hon. Member a list of them. A casual desirous of seeking work who has completed his task is entitled in all cases to take his discharge at 6.30 in the morning of the day on which he is discharged.

PENSIONS AND INSURANCE BENEFITS.

27.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to introduce legislation whereby old age pension and State insurance health benefits may be payable to guardians of the poor whilst the recipients are inmates of these institutions?

Sir C. RAWSON: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider introducing such regulations as may be necessary in aid of public funds to enable boards of guardians to take credit for any sums receivable by persons admitted to Poor Law infirmaries in respect of old age pensions and/or State insurance benefits?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For the reasons set out in my written reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Islington East on the 6th instant, I am not prepared to introduce such legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PHYSICALLY DEFFCTIVE CHILDREN.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have made complete provision for the number of physically defective children under their jurisdiction: how many have made partial provision; and how many have not yet made any provision?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The question whether complete provision exists in any particular area for dealing with physically defective children is a matter of opinion, as it depends upon the thoroughness of ascertainment and on the nature of the standards adopted. In 263 areas provision is made for the education of substantial numbers of physically defective children at special schools, and in about 140 areas provision is made for the treatment of cripple children by way of orthopædic or similar schemes. In about 40 areas no provision has so far been made.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the noble Lord intend to put any pressure on local authorities who are as yet failing to carry out their duties in view of the recent Mental Deficiency Bill?

Lord E. PERCY: The Mental Deficiency Bill has nothing whatever to do with the question on the Paper, which refers to physically defective children. As regards the other part of the question, I shall certainly press local authorities to carry out their duties where they are not doing so.

Mr. MORRISON: 21.
also asked the President of the Board of Education if
he will give the present estimated number of physically defective children who might benefit by admission to special schools; how many of these children are at present in special schools; how many in public elementary schools; how many in other institutions; and how many are not attending any School?

Lord E. PERCY: The total number of children ascertained by local education authorities in 1925, the latest year for which complete returns are available, as physically defective within the meaning of Section 55 of the Education Act, 1921 (including those suffering from some form of tuberculosis, those classed as cripples, and those classed as "delicate"), was 142,889. Of these, 25,769 attended special schools during that year, 94,332 were at public elementary schools, and 3,857 were in other institutions, while 18,931 were not attending any School. As regards the children attending public elementary schools, it should be remembered that most of the delicate children require only a relatively short period at an open-air School, and the majority of the cripples can be so far benefited by orthopædic treatment as to render them capable of profiting from the instruction in ordinary elementary schools.

Mr. MORRISON: Does not the Noble Lord think these figures sufficiently alarming to approach local authorities with a view to some better provision being made for these children?

Lord E. PERCY: I think if the hon. Member examines the figures closely he will see they are not really alarming. What we need is a very much better development of ascertainment and orthopædic treatment, but it would be a very large assumption, and quite out of harmony with present medical opinion, and the tendency of medical opinion, to suppose that all these children who are ascertained as physically defective ought to be taken to special schools.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does it not strike the Noble Lord as alarming that there are such large numbers of defective children, and if he would make inquiry he would find that it is largely owing to bad housing conditions and starvation?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question concerns another Minister.

EVENING CLASSES, DURHAM.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education what action he proposes to take to ensure further education by evening classes to boys working in the mines in the County of Durham, owing to the fact that their working hours will only allow of their being able to attend every third week?

Lord E. PERCY: The matter is primarily one for the local education authority. Their programme includes proposals for special centres at West Stanley and Bishop Auckland, and I understand that the Miners' Welfare Committee are prepared to make capital grants for the provision of these, and of similar, centres in the county.

Mr. RICHARDSON: My point is not as to the provision that is made, but how the boys are to be able to take advantage of it.

Lord E. PERCY: I do not quite understand why the hull. Member puts the question to me. The provision will be there. The question of what arrangements will be made for boys to be able to take advantage of it is surely one for settlement in the industry itself, and surely no Minister of State can bring boys to centres of Voluntary education when they do not wish to come or by the conditions of their employment are prevented from coming.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Has the Noble Lord not power to compel the employers to give the boys time to attend? He has the power for elementary education.

Mr. SPEAKER: This would need legislation.

HEDLEV HILL SCHOOL (PROVISION OF MEALS).

Major KINDERSLEY: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to the refusal of food to a miner's children at the canteen of Hedley Hill Council School and the action of the headmaster?

Lord E. PERCY: In the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, a summons for assaulting the boys was taken out by the parent against the headmaster, who appeared before the Petty Sessions on Thursday last. He was found
guilty of assault and was fined 20 shillings in respect of each offence and £7 17s. 6d. costs. In view of this conviction the Board will take the usual steps to inquire into the conduct of the teacher concerned.

Major KINDERSLEY: Is it not a fact that this headmaster is well known in the neighbourhood as holding extreme Socialist views?

Mr. COVE: Is it not a fact that the education authority have already passed a Resolution of confidence in this headmaster?

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: Can the Noble Lord say there is any question at all whether this man will be kept at his present post or any post in connection with education, considering what he has done?

Lord E. PERCY: I think it would be very much better if a case like this were not discussed now in any sense. I have to exercise judicial duties in a case of this kind, and I do not want to express any opinion or say anything at the moment.

ARCOS, LIMITED (EMPLOYES).

Mr. TAYLOR: 16.
asked the Home Secretary how many employés are employed in Great Britain by Arcos and its subsidiary companies; how many are Russians; and the number of those of Russian nationality who were resident in Great Britain before the signing of the trade agreement in 1921?

Captain HACKING: The answer to the first part of the question is 1,215, as I am informed. Of these 400 are, as I have said before, Soviet citizens, but I am sorry that, without prolonged search, I could not give figures in answer to the last part of the question. I can, however, assure the House that applications for visas from Soviet citizens seeking to join any of these companies are, and always have been, considered very carefully before they are granted.

Mr. TAYLOR: Has the Department had occasion to make any complaint against any of these citizens for interfering in British political affairs or taking part in propaganda?

Captain HACKING: In a matter of detail like that, I must have notice.

Mr. MARCH: Do they take the same care in allowing aliens to come into the country? The Home Secretary has frequently stated that none is allowed in except after consultation with the Ministry of Labour.

Captain HACKING: We are frequently in consultation with the Ministry of Labour in matters of this kind.

Colonel GRETTON: In what business is this very large number of people employed?

Captain HACKING: I have not details with me. Perhaps I can find out if my right hon. and gallant Friend wants to know.

Sir C. RAWSON: How many of the British employés are ex-police strikers?

Captain HACKING: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. HAYES: Is there, in the opinion of the Home Office, anything discreditable in any ex-member of the police force being engaged in a bona fide undertaking?

Captain HACKING: I really must have notice of a question like that, which does not arise out of the question.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Since a general accusation has been made against these people, cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether or not he has any evidence that any of these employés have been guilty of interfering with political propaganda in this country?

Captain HACKING: That does not arise out of the question asked me. I have answered the question on the Paper. If the hon. Member cares to put down another question, I will do my best to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTAL FEES, LANCASHIRE).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that several large approved societies in Lancashire, providing dental benefit for their members, have refused to adopt the scale of fees and conditions of service as agreed upon by the Dental Benefit Joint Committee; that a considerable number
of dentists have indicated their willingness to continue to do the work on the old scale of fees; that the Public Dental Service Association has in consequence informed such dentists that they are liable to be struck off the dental register by the Joint Dental Board; and what action does he propose to take in this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that a few approved societies in Lancashire and elsewhere are still reluctant to adopt the new scale of fees and conditions of service for dental benefit, and that some of them claim that they have obtained from a number of dentists an indication of willingness to accept a lower scale of fees. The opposition to the new scale is, however, daily growing less as the advantages of the new arrangements drawn up by the Dental Benefit Joint Committee become more fully appreciated. As regards the third part of the question, I am informed that the Public Dental Service Association has called the attention or dentists to a warning notice issued by the Dental Board against anything in the nature of cavassing by or on behalf of dentists with a view to securing work by an offer to accept fees below those of the new agreed scale. I do not think that the circumstances call for any action on my part.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the fact that some of the Societies decline to operate the new Scale, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be better to call the parties together again, to see whether they can come to some agreement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: An agreement has already been reached.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the ease that when the Dentists Bill was before this House it brought within its scope the unqualified dentists, and certain things were laid down in regard to the increase in the price of dentistry that might arise subsequently?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER.

Mr. HASLAM: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether, considering that in the Irish Free State and parts of Denmark there is little or no inspection of farm premises, he will issue instructions to local authorities to proceed with dis-
cretion in the administration of those parts of the Milk and Dairies Order requiring financial outlay, especially in cases of smallholders?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have this matter under consideration in conjunction with other questions which have arisen as to the administration of the Order.

Mr. HASLAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman Lake into consideration the fact that, owing to statements made by sanitary inspectors and other persons claiming authority, there is very considerable alarm in the minds of smallholders, and that many of them are considering whether they will be able to continue keeping a cow or two?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is one of the points which I am taking into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Sir W. de FRECE: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the continual increases in the price of bricks and all other building materials, he will consider the appointment at an early date of a Committee of Inquiry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given yesterday to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Dewsbury.

BUILDING OPERATIVES (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Captain MACDONALD: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the building trade at the present time there are over 86,000 unemployed workers; whether his Department knows if any actual or anticipated housing schemes are held up in consequence of an inadequate number of workers; if so, which these are; and what steps he is taking to stimulate the transport of such labour from one district to another?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the last return the number of unemployed persons connected with the building trade in Great. Britain was 88,064. Of this number the total of bricklayers, slaters and plasterers was 4,063, while the great bulk, amounting to 84,001, were
painters, labourers and others. I am not aware that housing schemes are being held up by a shortage of labour of which there is any material surplus elsewhere, and I do not think that any serious difficulty arises in securing the transfer of labour to areas where it is required.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the total of 4,000 bricklayers and plasterers unemployed is higher than the figure at any other time during the last three years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NECESSITOUS AREAS (GRANTS).

Mr. TAYLOR: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has prepared or is preparing a scheme of block grants for the relief of necessitous areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No scheme has been prepared or is being prepared for giving specific Exchequer assistance to necessitous areas. A proposal to substitute for certain grants now being made to local authorities block grants distributed on a basis which would give weight to the relative ability of the areas to bear the burden of rates, has been under discussion with the associations of local authorities for a considerable time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL DEFECTIVES (ACCOMMODATION, MIDDLESEX).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, at a meeting of the Middlesex County Council, held on the 25th ultimo, a report of the committee for the care of the mentally defective was adopted drawing attention to the considerable number of mental defectives in the County of Middlesex for whom the committee have been unable to make provision, and pointing out that, while the county council is prepared to do its duty, the Board of Control has repeatedly prevented accommodation from being obtained; and whether he will state the grounds upon which the action of the Board has been taken?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a copy of the report which refers
particularly to an application of the Middlesex Mental Deficiency Committee for approval to purchase at auction a small property for mental deficiency purposes. This property was likely to become superfluous in a few years time when the county council's large colony at Porters Park is ready for occupation. The Board of Control agreed to the authority bidding up to the figure at which the district valuer had valued the property, but, in all the circumstances, they did not feel justified in going beyond this figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Dr. WATTS: 36.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many insured persons who wished to join the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 192;, Voluntary section, have been refused because they omitted to apply before 4th July, 1926; and if he will consider the question of extending the time limit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAlN: I understand that a certain number of persons qualified to heroine Voluntary contributors failed to apply within the time normally allowed under the statutory Regulations. As to an extension of the time limit, I would refer to the answers given to questions by the hon. Members for Elland and South Mofton en the 25th November and the 2nd December.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will furnish particulars of the gross assessment to Income Tax for the year ending the 5th April, 1924, separately for the 13 counties of Wales including Monmouthshire, under Schedules A and B, indicating lands, houses, and other property, each separately?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I regret that this information is not available, as statistics of the Income Tax relating to separate counties are no longer collected.

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people in the Principality of Wales are anxious to know exactly what they contribute as a nation?
We have our own reasons for asking this question, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider it.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is it not a fact that these particulars were given in returns prior to the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that is perfectly true, but owing to a general desire for economy a number of returns have been, after careful consideration, I believe, with the aid of a Committee of this House, suppressed.

Mr. JONES: I wish to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, because in Wales we attach great importance to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]
43. The hon. Member also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the annual value of the properties and profits or gross income assessed to Income Tax in the years ending 5th April, 1913, 5th April, 1914, 5th April, 1923, 5th April, 1924, and 5th April, 1925, respectively, for Scotland, England, excluding Monmouthshire, and Wales, including Monmouthshire, showing separately the amounts under each of the five schedules, as stated in the Return presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th May, 1913?

Mr. CHURCHILL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the desired particulars for England, Wales and Scotland separately for the years

Year.
Schedule.
Gross Income brought under review in—


England (excluding Monmouthshire).
Wales (including Monmouthshire).
Scotland.







£
£
£


1912–13
…
…
Schedule A
…
225,352,914
11,958,171
27,164,397





Schedule B
…
11,179,019
1,110,149
1,912,842





Schedule C
…
49,473,242
—
—





Schedule D
…
533,756,606
17,382,103
60,408,996





Schedule E
…
116,611,580
3,269,653
10,397,809





Total
…
936,373,361
33,720,076
99,884,044


1913–14
…
…
Schedule A
…
227,592,129
12,164,660
27,385,157





Schedule B
…
11,242,909
1,111,213
1,912,120





Schedule C
…
50,334,234
—
—





Schedule D
…
569,902,688
18,497,721
64,529,608





Schedule E
…
125,191,648
3,672,415
11,100,140





Total
…
984,263,608
35,446,009
104,927,025

1912–13 and 1913–14. I am unable to furnish similar details for the post-War years, as the present statistics of the Income Tax do not distinguish Wales separately from England; but the hon. Member will find in the 67th and 68th Reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue details for England and Wales taken together, and for Scotland for the years ended 5th April, 1923 and 1924.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why Wales is treated differently in this matter from Scotland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: All this is evidently the result of decisions which have been taken since the War and with which decisions I am sure the House of Commons, in one form or another, have been associated. Of course, if there was a general desire to reopen the topic on the part of a number of hon. Members, naturally it would be our desire to consider that wish.

Commander WILLIAMS: Have the Welsh people shown any desire to bear the additional cost involved?

Mr. MARDY JONES: There is no evidence that there would be additional cost. Is it not a fact that Wales has contributed more than its fair share of taxation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As these matters are veiled at present in the mystery of a joint return, I am unable to say whether that is so, but I think it is very unlikely.

Following is the table promised:

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SHOPPING WEEK.

Sir C. RAWSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider issuing an appeal over the names of appropriate Ministers to local authorities, traders and others throughout the country to organise an Empire shopping week commencing 23rd May, 1927, Empire day, in order to emphasise to the consumer, in a practical form, the varied resources of the British Empire?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My hon. Friend's suggestion will be carefully considered.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider, before spending public money in this way, that this class of middlemen is among the most prosperous in this community; and why should public money be spent on making them more prosperous?

Sir C. RAWSON: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question in the same way as the hon. and gallant Member?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNION LAW.

Mr. ERSKINE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend the trade union law at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Tuesday, 16th November, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, to which I can at present add nothing.

Mr. ERSKINE: May I ask whether the Committee's Report has been considered by the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would gladly tell my hon. Friend, but Cabinet business is supposed to be secret.

Captain BENN: Has the Cabinet given any decision as to whether in their view the general strike was a breach of the existing law?

The PRIME MINISTER: When the Cabinet does give any decision on any point, and they think fit to announce it, they do so.

Mr. W. THORNE: Was not the decision of the Cabinet given in the Press a few days ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. ERSKINE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister, whether, having regard to the urgency which exists for the reform of the House of Lords, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation dealing with the question at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. ERSKINE: Does that mean that the question is indefinitely postponed?

The PRIME MINISTER: It means exactly what the answer says.

Captain BENN: Has the Prime Minister taken into review the Resolution passed at the Scarborough Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I always consider Resolutions wherever they are passed.

Mr. MARDY JONES: May I ask whether the Cabinet has yet considered the abolition of the House of Lords?

The PRIME MINISTER: Again, I am unable to disclose Cabinet secrets.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Dr. WATTS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the grievances of pre-War pensioners; and if he will introduce legislation to amend the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, with a view to their removal?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to reply, and would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 25th October, 1926, to the hon. Member for Devonport.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether it is not the fact that a majority of the supporters of the Government are pledged to introduce legislation on this subject, and does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Government should honour this pledge?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will allot a
day before the House rises to discuss the position created by the continued sequence of accidents in the Air Force?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I regret that I cannot give time for this discussion. Though I deeply deplore such accidents, I am satisfied that every possible precaution has been and will continue to be taken to safeguard the lives of the Royal Air Force personnel.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have just been informed that another accident has occurred to a Gloucester Grebe machine near Folkestone, and whether he is aware of the great anxiety there is in the country in regard to these accidents?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a statement.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I submit, Mr Speaker, that this is a matter of great concern, and why should I be debarred from putting a question on it?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was making a statement.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the routine system of investigation into aeroplane accidents in the Royal Air Force; how long it has been in force; and whether he will consider any strengthening of the system of investigation from headquarters?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first part of the question, the routine procedure in connection with the investigation of flying accidents is laid down in detail in paragraphs 1312 and 1312, King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions, 1924, from which it will be seen that a Service Court of Inquiry is held on all serious accidents. The reports of all Courts of Inquiry are of course scrutinised in detail at the Air Ministry with the utmost care. An entirely independent investigation is also made into every serious accident by the Inspector of Accidents of the Air Ministry, who renders his reports direct to the Secretary of State. In the light of his report and that of the Service Court of Inquiry all possible steps are taken to prevent a recurrence. In addition, the details of all flying accidents
and forced landings are summarised every six months and investigated statistically with a view to elucidating recurring causes of accidents and other statistical inquiries on special aspects of the problem, such as engine failures, are constantly undertaken. For further information in regard to the measures taken to prevent accidents I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given on the 22nd and 25th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) and the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Robinson), respectively. As regards the second part of the question, the present system has been in force, subject to minor changes, since the inception of the Royal Air Force. As regards the last part, I am not clear how the present system of investigation could be strengthened, but the question of the prevention of accidents is one which engages constantly the attention of the Secretary of State and of the Air Council, and if it is found that anything more can be done than is being done at present, whether by way of strengthening the investigation or otherwise to prevent crashes, the hon. and gallant Member may be assured that it will be done.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Could not the hon. Baronet strengthen the system under which only one strengthen makes a supplementary inquiry for the Air Ministry, especially in view of the fact that in many cases that officer has not been able to assign any cause for the accident?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am satisfied that all precautions are being taken to make the investigation of accidents as strong as possible, but my right hon. Friend will be glad to receive any suggestions which the hon. and gallant Member may have in mind.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I did not say anything about precautions, but I asked whether it was possible for the system under which only one officer makes an investigation to be strengthened. Could not two or three officers join in these investigations in order to have the benefit of more than one head?

Sir P. SASSOON: There are two separate inquiries composed of a sufficient number of people to do the work efficiently.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Baronet aware that the French Air Force is three times greater than our Air Force, and yet we have many times more accidents than they have; and what action does he take on these reports when he receives them; and, further, will the Air Ministry appoint a Committee to investigate the very serious position which has arisen?

Sir P. SASSOON: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the French Air Force is not three times the size of ours. It is not double the size of our Air Force. With regard to the number of French air accidents, as far as I am aware, the figures published in the papers are ludicrously underestimated. With regard to appointing a Committee to investigate the whole of this problem, perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question on that subject.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA.: What does the hon. Baronet mean by the statement that the French Air Force have ludicrously under-estimated the number of their accidents? Does he mean that they publish false figures?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, I said "the figures published in the papers."

Captain BRASS: Is it not a fact that most of these accidents are due to errors of judgment on the part of the pilots?

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is it not also a fact that a totally independent civil inquiry, apart from that of the Air Force, is held into all accidents which take place in the Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: I said so in my original reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH MINISTER'S PRONOUNCEMENT).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the pronouncement by the British Minister to China that there could he no question of intervention by Great Britain in the internal affairs of China was made on the instructions of the Government?

UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the
Foreign Minister has on various occasions made it quite clear that the Government have no intention of interfering in the domestic concerns of China, and the statement made by Mr. Lampson is in accordance with that policy.

Sir F. HALL: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether adequate steps will be taken to protect the lives of people in China, and also for the maintenance of our general trade in that country?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend on various occasions has made it quite clear that we shall take all possible steps to safeguard the lives of British subjects in China—

Sir F. HALL: And the maintenance of the trade which has been built up in China?

Captain BENN: Do the Government share the view of Lord Inchcape that the root of all the trouble is the spread of Christianity?

Oral Answers to Questions — ISLE OF MAN (WAR CONTRIBUTION).

Mr. HAYES: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has come to any decision with reference to the offer made by the Manx Government in settlement of its contribution towards the cost of the Great War; and, if so, whether he will state what his decision is?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have accepted on behalf of Isis Majesty's Government the offer made by the Government of the Isle of Man to undertake liability for a further £500,000 of War Stock in settlement of its contribution towards the cost of the War; and I am glad to place on record my appreciation of this offer, which brings the total of the contributions of the Manx Government in this regard to a sum of £760,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS MANTLES DUTY (RECEIPTS).

Captain BENN: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the total receipts from the duty imposed upon imported gas mantles for the first six months of the present year and for a subsequent period to any convenient date, respectively; and how these figures compare with the estimates of the yield of the duty framed by his Department?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The total receipts from the duty on imported gas mantles for the first six months of the current financial year were £5,600. The receipts for the succeeding months of October and November were £1,700. The estimated receipts for the whole of the current financial year were £10,000. The receipts of duty up to the present time are therefore pro rata slightly in excess of the Budget Estimate, which was published in the Financial Statement for 1926–27.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any international agreement by which the British producer is protected in this market, and contributes a toll to the German producer not to send mantles here?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

Sir C. RAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this industry has benefited or otherwise by the imposition of these duties?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATH DUTIES (CHANNEL ISLANDS).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has come to any decision with the Channel Islands in regard to Death Duties?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The subject to which my hon. Friend refers is engaging my attention, hut I am not able at the present to make any statement on the matter.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not possible to do something which will have a practical result?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No one is more anxious to secure some practical result than I am, not only in regard to the question of contributions, but on what is a still more important question—tax evasions by persons taking up their residence there.

Mr. HAYES: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received the Death Duties on a certain estate which has recently been very prominently before the Courts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is rather a vague description, but if I am right in inferring that the hon. Member means the Houston estate, that matter is being pursued with vigour by the Revenue
authorities, and will be pursued, but these matters take considerable time in regard to very complicated estates.

Oral Answers to Questions — DECEASED SOLDIERS AND AIRMEN (PERSONAL ESTATE).

Mr. SMITHERS: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that several pages of the "London Gazette" were recently devoted to the names of dead soldiers and airmen whose personal estate is held for distribution, and in view of the fact that a very small proportion of those affected have ever seen or heard of the "London Gazette." he will consider the advisibility of causing these lists to be posted in post offices and issued to the daily Press so that the friends of the deceased may have knowledge of their right to make claims upon these estates?

Mr. McNEILL: I am informed that under the provisions of the Regimental Debts Act every unclaimed balance due to an officer or a soldier is published once a year for seven years is the "London Gazette." It would not be possible, except at prohibitive cost, to publish these lists in full in the daily Press, but short advertisements are inserted at least six times a year drawing attention to the lists appearing in the "London Gazette," and giving instructions how claims are to be made.
In addition, arrangements are being made for the communication, through the provincial Press, of such information regarding unclaimed effects as is likely to be of interest in the particular locality. The exhibition in Head Post Offices of the full lists and of a short notice in all Post Offices was tried for several years, but the results did not justify the continuance of the practice.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask the Financial Secretary to take whatever stops are necessary to sue that this information is available to the public, and that as these circumstances are somewhat exceptional he will take exceptional means to meet them?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not know what further steps we can take other than those which I have described, but I shall be glad to receive any suggestions from the hon. Member.

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has asked the Press to insert these lists without charge?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

TITHE (REDEMPTION).

Major STEEL: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the high costs for redemption of tithe, he will state upon what basis the costs are arrived at; and why the whole of the cost for ascertaining the amount of the redemption figure falls upon the tithe redeemer?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Faversham on the 7th instant. As regards the last part of the question, the Tithe Act, 1860, provides that all expenses incidental to any redemption shall be payable by the owners of the lands liable to the rentcharge to be redeemed. I may add that, during the passage of the Tithe Act, 1925, through Parliament, no suggestion was made from any quarter of the House that the procedure which had been in force for so many years should be altered.

Major STEEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider if there are means of arriving at the amount of tithe redemption at less cost than it entails at present?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have gone very carefully into the matter. I fully appreciate the hardship which is involved, but we have not been able to find any method of avoiding it.

Sir G. WHELER: May I ask whether in these small cases of compulsory tithe redemption a simple form of procedure could not be adopted?

Mr. GUINNESS: Is it not a mere matter of procedure but of examinations and costly surveys which have to be made.

Sir G. WHELER: Yes, but is that necessary? That is my point.

Mr. GUINNESS: These apportionments are very complicated, but I shall be glad to go into the question with my hon. and gallant Friend.

SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that he has sent a commission to Germany to investigate the sugar-beet industry, he will request this body to ascertain the system under which refining in Germany is carried on; and whether this is done by local factories or by refineries to which factories supply raw sugar?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am informed that on the occasion of the recent informal visit to Saxony of officers of my Department it was noted that some of the sugar-beet factories manufacture white sugar by continuous process and others produce raw sugar which is sent to central refineries, the control of which is tending to pass to beet sugar interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 60.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the total number of acres afforested by the State and local authorities; and the proportion of wood suitable for pulp and paper-making and, roughly, its geographical position?

Sir LEOFIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners planted 71,000 acres to the end of last season; their programme for the current season is 22,600. 4,500 acres have been planted by local authorities with the aid of State grants. Approximately one-fourth of the State plantations consist of spruce suitable for pulp and paper making; the geographical position of the more important spruce areas is indicated on the map posted in the tea room.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Would the hon. Member for Monmouth, as the representative of the Forestry Commissioners, in view of the importance of his subject to the nation, represent to the Government the advisability of making arrangements for periodic discussions in this House of the work of the Forestry Commission?

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Member tell us whether the work of the Commission has been impeded in any way by the non-passing of the Forestry Bill?

Sir F. WISE: What acreage is under farming?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: I must ask for notice of that question. I cannot keep those figures in my head.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not in order for a Member of the House to ask the hon. Member who represents the Forestry Commissioners whether the Forestry Commission does not believe that it would be to the national advantage to have periodic discussions of the work of this Commission, instead of having no discussion upon it at all?

Mr. MAXTON: May I press the hon. Member for an answer? It is a most unusual thing to have an opportunity of getting a reply from the Forestry Commission. I put a very simple question, and the hon. Member has vouchsafed no reply.

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: I can only say that the non-passing of the Forestry Bill has not affected our programme one little bit.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the Commission's work been hampered because of the failure to obtain land in sufficient quantities?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: No: we have been very successful in obtaining land, but if the hon. Member knows of any of which we can get hold, we shall he very glad to have his help and advice.

Colonel WOODCOCK: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he has any farms connected with the Forestry Commission?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: I really could not say. We do not farm, but plant trees. Our programme is for about 200 small holding this season. We have about 200 small holdings.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Are there not 15 farms?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

EAST AFRICA (MAIL SERVICE).

Captain CUNNINGHAM REID: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the growing importance of the East. African Territories, Kenya,
Uganda and Tanganyika, the establishment of a regular mail service to those territories is contemplated?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): There is a regular mail service once a fortnight to the territories mentioned. Mails are also despatched weekly to Aden and conveyed thence by the Union Castle, British India, Harrison Line and other steamships proceeding to East African ports.

Captain BRASS: Would my Noble Friend consider sending letters by air to Kenya?

Viscount WOLMER: That matter is being considered.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are the Government taking every precaution to see that, when we are developing these areas, the proceeds are not going to foreigners?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I mean the Belgians.

CLIFTON (TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 63.
asked the Postmaster - General why telegrams directed to Clifton-Bristol must be addressed Clifton-Glos., in order to avoid an additional word, instead of Clifton-Bristol, as Clifton is a suburb of Bristol and in the county of Bristol, and not in the county of Gloucestershire and will he take the necessary steps to correct this error?

Viscount WOLMER: I am having inquiry made into the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member, and will write to him on the subject as soon as the inquiries have been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (MILITARY SERVICE).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if a copy of the Bill for compulsory military service now before the Parliament of Iraq can be laid in the Library of the House?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): So far as I am aware, no Bill for compulsory military service has as yet been introduced in the Iraq Parliament.

Mr. SMITH: Has the Department received any suggestions or recommendations with regard to compulsory military service, and is it the intention of the British Government to support a claim for compulsory military service in Iraq?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The late Government in Iraq, in the King's Speech which was presented to His Majesty the King of Iraq to be read at the opening of the Iraq Parliament, announced something to that effect, and since then that Government has fallen and the new Government had not made any suggestion to that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

OTTOMAN PUBLIC DEBT.

Mr. GILLETT: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the actual amount, valued in pounds sterling, of Palestine's share of the Ottoman Public Debt; and what is the yearly expenditure for interest and sinking fund that falls upon the Government of Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Palestine's share of the Ottoman Public Debt is 2.46 per cent. as regards the loans prior to 17th October, 1912, and 3.02 per cent. as regards the loans raised between 17th October, 1912, and 1st November, 1914. Pending the settlement of questions which are still outstanding, it is not possible to state the sterling value of Palestine's share of the capital debt or the annual expenditure which will fall on the Government of Palestine.

MILITARY FORCES (MAINTENANCE COST).

Mr. GILLETT: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to continue to charge the cost of maintenance of the military (including Air Force) units stationed in Palestine on Imperial funds or whether it is intended that this expense shall be borne by the Government of Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir; the cost of the Imperial units stationed in Palestine and Trans-Jordan, name one squadron Royal Air Force and one armoured car company, will continue for the present to be borne on Imperial funds.

Mr. GILLETT: Is it not a fact that there was a surplus on the finances of Palestine last year? Why could this expense not be borne by Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Palestine pays for the whole of its own local forces. It does not pay for these imperial forces, which are part of our Royal Air Force, and, therefore, under the control of this House rather than under the control of the Palestine Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUTTON BY-PASS ROAD.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the Sutton by-pass road, which is constructed of diagonally laid strips of concrete, each of which is of a convex surface; whether he considers that this is a satisfactory form of construction; and, if not, if he will state the probable cost of relaying the road?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am aware of the form of construction adopted for the Sutton by-pass road, but am not prepared to formulate conclusions until the road has been subjected to a longer test under traffic.

Captain BRASS: Would my right hon. Friend accompany me on that road so as to see that the minimum speed which is comfortable is 50 miles an hour?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not sure, owing to the experiences of my hon. and gallant Friend with the police.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-morrow and next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow, after the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill has been disposed of, we shall consider Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Bill, and the Burgh Registers (Scotland) Bill, anti take the Third Reading of the Palestine and Fast Africa Loans (Guarantee) Bill.
On Monday: Report and Third Reading of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Bill [Lords], Coroner's (Amendment) Bill [Lords], Legitimacy Bill [Lords], Mental Deficiency Bill [Lords], Judicial Committee Bill [Lords], and consideration of any Lords Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place.
Tuesday: Lords Amendments to Bills and any other business necessary to bring the Session to a close. An opportunity will, be given for a Debate on Necessitous Areas, to be initiated by the Opposition.
I hope that Prorogation will take place on Wednesday next, 15th December.

Captain BENN: May I ask the Prime Minister which Orders he proposes to take to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Palestine and East Africa Loans (Guarantee) Bill, Committee stage, the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Bill, Committee stage, the Emergency Powers Act Regulations Resolution and the Judicial Committee Bill, Committee stage.

Captain BENN: Will the Judicial Committee Bill be taken before the Regulations, or will the Regulations be taken first?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Regulations first.

Captain BENN: Has the Prime Minister observed the Amendments on the Paper in connection with these first two Orders mentioned, and can he give any estimate of the time at which this Emergency Regulations Resolution will be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: That of course is a matter on which I cannot give an opinion. It rests with the House.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right to take a Resolution of such great Constitutional importance at an early hour in the morning?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should have thought that the surrender of these Emergency powers would have been something agreeable to hon. Members.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Is it intended to complete the Committee stage of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Bill to-night? It is a very contentions Measure.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to say how much can be accomplished, but. I hope we can take what I have announced.

Mr. MACLEAN: In regard to the Emergency Regulations, is it not the substitution of some Orders for others? Have we not received a White Paper intimating to us that instead of withdrawing the Orders the Home Secretary is substituting certain Orders for others?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen any White Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then I think the Debate should be adjourned if the Prime Minister does not know what is going to come on. Surely it is time he had the White Paper in his hand to read it.

Captain BENN: Does not the Prime Minister realise the impropriety of taking a Resolution of this importance so late to-night? It is the only opportunity we have of discussing the whole of the procedure under the Emergency Powers Act.

The PRIME MINISTER: I fail to see any impropriety.

Mr. MACLEAN: Am I to understand that the White Paper in my hand, which contains certain Orders in substitution of other Orders, will not be brought before the house to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. It is coming before the House.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then you know about it?

Captain BENN: Does the Prime Minister arrange at what time business shall be taken without acquainting himself with what the business in question is?

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I do not know if I am properly informed. There is no agreement, but I understood there was a sort of understanding that these Emergency Regulations would be debated at a fairly reasonable hour, and that, if any of the other business had not been finished before that reasonable hour, it would be continued after the Emergency Regulations. I want to make it quite clear to the House that I do not say there is any agreement—none whatever—but I thought there was a sort of friendly understanding.

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying there is no agreement, and he is perfectly right in his assumption that we shall take these Regulations at a reasonable hour. I have only given what I hope it will be possible to do.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that to-night is the last opportunity for taking these Regulations, and that if he does not take the Resolution to-night, the Regulations will be revived under the Emergency Powers Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend has not got the time quite right.

Captain BENN: Is it not the fact that these Regulations last for seven days

from the day on which they are laid, and that they were actually laid on Friday of last week?

Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it be a great calamity if the house were to sit an additional day, so that we could take the Regulations now?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. if the hon. and gallant. Gentleman asked, I have no doubt that the House would sit tilt Christmas Eve.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the proceeding on Government Business be exempted at. this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided Ayes, 216: Noes. 102.

Division No. 550.]
AYES.
[3.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hawke, John Anthony


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Headlam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Albery, Irving James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar.amp; Wh'by)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hills, Major John Waiter


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir O. (St, Marylebone)


Apsley, Lord
Cunliffe. Sir Herbert
Holland. Sir Arthur


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U, M.(Hackney, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hume, Sir G. H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Dixey. A. C.
Hurd. Percy A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bennett, A. J.
Drewe, C.
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Berry, Sir George
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Betterton, Henry B
Elliott, Major Walter E.
Jacob, A. E.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton;
Ellis, R. G.
James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Blundell, F. N.
Erskine Lord (Somerset.Weston-s.-M.)
Jephcott, A. R.


Bowyer. Captain G. E. W.
Erskine,' James Malcolm Monteith
Kennedy. A. P. (Preston)


Braithwaite. A. N.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Brass, captain W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
King, Capt. Henry Douglas


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William dive
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement


Briggs, J. Harold
Falle. Sir Bertram G.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fanshawe. Commander G. D.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fermoy, Lord
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fielden, E. B.
Loder, J. de V.


Brown, Brig. Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Forestier. Walker, Sir L.
Lowe. Sri Francis William


Buckingham, Sir H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bullock, Captain M.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Macdonald, Capt. P.D. (I. of W.)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
MacIntyre, Ian


Burman. J. B.
Gadie. Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McLean. Major A.


Burton. Colonel H. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Caine, Gordon Hall
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Malone, Major P. B.


Carver, W. H.
Grace, John
Manningnam-Buller. Sir Mervyn


Cautley, Sir Henry s.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland. N.)
Margesson, Captain D.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, F. B.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Greene. W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Chapman, Sir S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moles, Thomas


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Christie, I. A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murchison, C. K.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Hall, Capt- W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cockerill. Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Harland, A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cooper, A. Duff
Hartington, Marquess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cope, Major William
Haslam, Henry C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shaw, Cap). Walter (Wilts, Westb'yl
Waddington, R.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingstonon-Hull)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Radford, E. A.
Smithers, Waldron
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Raine. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watts, Dr. T.


Ramsden, E.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, S. R.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.I
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Remnant, Sir James
Steel, Major Samuel String
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ropner, Major L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wolmer, Viscount


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick K.
Womersley, w. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Samuel, A, M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.



Sandon, Lord
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Rose, Frank H.


Baker, Walter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhille)


Bondfield, Margaret
Kelly, w. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dunnico, H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
viant, S. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Owen, Major G.
Wiggins, William Martin


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hardle. George D.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.


Question put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to render illegal certain agreements as to bidding at auctions." [Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS (GUARANTEE) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Guarantee of Palestine and East African Loan.)

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page l., line 12, to leave out the word "Kenya."
4.0 P.M.
I move to omit Kenya from the benefit of this guarantee. It has been explained in the Debate on the Financial Resolution, and shown by the fact that my hon. Friends did not divide against that Resolution, that we have no hostility, in fact quite the reverse, toward sound and equitable developments, equitable as between the native and the white population, under this British guarantee. But there are certain things that call to be said about Kenya, and which I think it best should be said now, so that there shall be no misunderstanding as to our opinion of the conduct of a number of persons connected with that colony and its policy. In Kenya there is a small minority of white planters who would get a considerable part of the benefit of this guarantee and who in our opinion should not so benefit. We are not impressed by the formation of a conscript Fascist militia in that colony nor by developments in the penal code, introducing capital punishment for sexual offences. But leaving that aside and merely commenting upon it as the sign of an unhealthy temper and spirit, we are particularly adverse to the labour and land legislation of the colony, and still more particularly to the Ordinances which have been recently adopted for promoting the flow of labour from the native reserves on to the estates of the white planters. It is in view of the development of these Ordinances that we submit to the Committee that Kenya should be excluded from the scope of this Bill.
In February, 1926, there was a conference of the Governors of the five
British Dependencies in East Africa at which various decisions were taken. It was laid down in the report of that conference that
every able-bodied native who showed no tendency to work"—
I am quoting from the official report—
should be given to understand that the Government expects him to do a reasonable amount of work, either in production in his own reserve or in labour for wages outside it.
If we were satisfied that it would be possible for the native to work effectively in his own reserve without undue pressure and to take that alternative course rather than the other, our attitude would be different, but I shall hope to show, as a matter of fact, that recent Ordinances in Kenya and recent pronouncements by responsible people in the colony suggest that the native is not being left to work in his own reserve, but is being steadily pressed by discreditable devices to leave his reserve and work on the estates of the white planters. The same report from which I have just quoted goes on to say that the Governors in their conference approved of the established practice in Kenya of prohibiting natives from growing in the reserves what is apparently the most profitable crop to grow, namely, the Arabica variety of coffee. The Governor of Tanganyika was unable to approve of that, and thereby showed his enlightenment, but the Governors by a majority appear to have taken that view, and I submit that this, among other considerations, is discouraging the natives from working in the most satisfactory way in their own reserves, because they are prohibited from growing the most profitable crop. I hope that we shall have some explanation of that from the Under-Secretary, whom we recognise as a great expert in these matters, when he rises to reply.
Hon. Members on the other side of the House have frequently suggested that industrial conscription, which is what this amounts to, is one of the disasters which would befall us under Socialism, but apparently it is taking place now in East Africa with Conservative approval. If we are to apply the principle that people who show no tendency to work shall be compelled to do so, it is easy to suggest various sections of the population of this country to whom it might be applied. What is sauce for the African native
should be sauce for the Duke and the royalty owner, but so far as I am aware it is not yet part of the Conservative party's policy. On the subject of forced labour, I wish to draw attention to further observations which were made in the Kenya Legislative Council so recently as 18th October. Lord Delamere, whom I ventured the other day to characterise as the Mussolini of that Colony—I think a not inaccurate description—said:
The coffee picking is on now, and I appeal to the Government and to its officials in the reserves to help to get it picked.
He then went on to say:
Natives are tremendously open to the proper kind of influence and suggestion by their official mentors in the reserves without any question of forced labour being even thought of.
That seems to me to be a little disingenuous [do not think it really takes in the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir Croft). I do not think that he is quite so simple as not to see through language of that kind.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: It is absolutely true.

Mr. DALTON: Then I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is more simple than I gave him credit for being. [Interruption] I dare say that firsthand experience is in some ways very valuable, but to the ordinary observer it appears very like bribing the native chiefs to do recruiting by various means among their tribes. Later in the Debate the Colonial Secretary of the Kenya Legislative Council said in reply:
The Government entirely endorsed what the Noble Lord has said. The Government did believe that an attitude of positive energy on the part of administrative officials was of the greatest assistance in aiding the flow of labour from the reserves, and also that an attitude of hostility or even of neutrality hindered the flow of labour. Administrative officers had been instructed generally and individually that they were to do their utmost to promote the flow of labour.
One of the means by which the flow of labour is being promoted is an Ordinance, a quite recent Ordinance, regarding con tracts between employers and employed. In practice, of course, it is a contract between white employers and native employés. Under the Ordinance a breach of contract is a criminal offence punishable by two months' imprisonment or a fine amounting to some seven months'
wages. Whereas hitherto these contracts have applied only to natives of 16 years and upwards, they are now to be extended to children of 12 and upwards. Children of 12 years of age are now, under this recent Ordinance, to be punishable by two months' imprisonment or by a fine of 100 shillings which, I have said, is equivalent to about seven mouths' wages, if, having been beguiled out of the reserves to Lord Delamere's estate, they subsequently go back again to the reserve before the period of contract labour has terminated. I know it is very dangerous to quote any pronouncement by any religious person to hon. Members opposite. I know that Bishops are not held in very great regard since events of a few months ago. But although the remark may be greeted with derision, I am going to quote a missionary member of the Legislation Council in Kenya who said:
He could testify front experience how labour went out of the reserves. It affected the School attendances, which showed a constant stream going out, and the district officials were encouraging it.
It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the whole policy of the Kenya Government, whatever it may be in verbal form, is, in practice, a continual squeeze to get the natives out of their reserves on to the estates of Lord Delamere and his friends, and Sir Frederick Lugard, whom we respect for his enlightened policy in another and happier part of Africa, recently stated:
If the planter has a powerful share in the legislation and policy of the Government, strict impartiality, despite the best intentions, becomes difficult.
We are asked in this Bill to guarantee money advanced by loan for railway and other developments. With regard to Kenya, in particular, we are not satisfied that it will be spent with equal and equitable advantage for the natives as compared with the bite planters who have got a twist on the governmental rope in that Colony. I propose to give one further fact, based upon answers given in this House by the Colonial Secretary, to the effect that the railways which have been constructed in Kenya run, as to 80 per cent., through land alienated ed to white planters, and the branch lines that have recently been laid only pass to the extent of 24 per cent. through native reserves. It would appear, therefore, that one reason why the natives of Kenya have developed so
small an amount of purchasing power, is that they have not had their fair share of railway and transport facilities as compared with white planters in that Colony.
I propose to submit one further consideration to the Committee in support of this Amendment. We are not at all satisfied that the system of taxation and public finance generally in Kenya is what it ought to be. A good deal has been said about the hut tax payable in money by natives, which is, of course, an additional lever for getting natives out of the reserves on to Lord Delamere's estate, but less has been said about the cattle tax, and I wish to refer to that for a moment. To quote again the Report of the Governors at their recent conference, the Governors say that
there was no objection to a tax on native cattle, where the stock was sufficiently numerous; and that such a tax was desirable where natives had surplus cattle and a suitable market existed, in order to promote the economic use of stock and the development of animal industry.
That seems to be the ancient Tariff Reform argument, that if you want to encourage trade you tax it. But the Governors go on to say:
It was generally felt that, while Europeans should not enjoy any special exemption, the taxation of European-owned stock must be based on revenue considerations, and was not necessary as a means of promoting development.
It is not clear to me, and I think it will not be clear to a number of my hon. Friends, that what, in effect, is an argument in favour of the taxation of native cattle in order to promote native develpoment, should not apply to European cattle, and, as in the case of the hut tax, and the refusal of the Kenya white planters to submit to even a mild form of Income Tax, it is not clear to us that the finances of the country have been conducted in a proper manner, and it is not clear to us that any advantages that will accrue to the Colony through this guarantee will be used in a manner of which we ought to approve, having regard to our trusteeship for the native population. It is because the complaints which have come to hand from Kenya are so much more serious than anything we have had from other Colonies proposed to be assisted under this guarantee, that we have thought it right to put down
this Amendment, in order to emphasise the lagging behind of Kenya Colony in all the principles that should govern the administration of the tropical dependencies of the Empire. We think it desirable to emphasise the disapproval of a considerable section of this country at the tendencies now operating in Kenya, and therefore propose that, until a better record can be shown, Kenya should be removed from the benefits quite rightly proposed to be conferred on other and better conducted dependencies.

Mr. W. BAKER: I beg to support the Amendment which has been so ably proposed by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), in the belief that the influence of the Government of Kenya has recently been thrown very heavily on the side of the white settlers, instead of being held as a balance between the white settlers and the natives. If the Committee will bear with me, I want to read a short extract from the "Manchester Guardian" of 30th November, which I believe has a very important bearing on the subject under discussion. The first part of the quotation is the report of the speech which was delivered by Sir Edward Grigg in Kenya during the month of October, in which he said:
Steady progress cannot be secured in some areas unless every able-bodied native who shows no tendency to work is given to understand that the Government expects him to do a reasonable amount of work, either in production in his own reserve or in labour for wages outside it. In areas where the first alternative is not within his reach, the native should be definitely encouraged to go out to labour.
I noticed that when that quotation from Sir Edward Grigg's speech was referred to by the hon. Member for Peckham, it met with applause and approval from the Under-Secretary. But the part of the quotation which I regard as so important is the "Manchester Guardian's" comment on that particular statement:
The picture of native life suggested by these two sentences is a parody of the truth. Condemned by poverty and ignorance to use inadequate toofs and methods, every native of Kenya has to work quite as hard as the workers of other countries to support himself and his family. In addition, he has to pay direct taxation amounting, for each adult male, to ten weeks' wages each year. In other parts of the world, if a man supported his family, and had to pay, however great his poverty, a fifth of his income to the State, no Government would dream of asking more of him.
In our view, the position in Kenya at the moment is very far from being satisfactory. We consider that every possible encouragement should be given to the natives to stay on their reserves, and that they should be given every possible assistance to enable them to develop along the lines which have been successful elsewhere, and we entirely disapprove of any effort which is made in the contrary direction in the hope that the removal of native labour from the reserves to the estates of the planters will be for the advantage of the white settlers. We want to ask for a definite assurance from the Colonial Secretary that everything possible will be done to secure a righting of the balance in Kenya, and I sincerely trust that assurance will be forthcoming during the present discussion. Lord Delamere can be quoted with regard to the influence of the policy to which the quotation refers. In the Legislative Council, in October, Lord Delamere said:
Natives are tremendously open to the proper kind of influence and suggestion by their official mentors in the reserves.
That action of the mentors to which Lord Delamere refers as being a proper kind of influence is, we believe, an entirely objectionable influence, and should not be exercised by the Government of Kenya, if it is to hold the balance fairly between the whites and the natives. We do sincerely trust that everything possible will be done to prevent undue influence being secured and maintained by the white settlers on whose behalf Lord Delamere speaks.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: When we were discussing the Money Resolution which preceded this Bill, I ventured to ask the Under-Secretary a number of questions. I gathered from what he said in the course of his reply, that he intended to defer the answering of some of them until the Committee stage of this Bill. I am very glad, therefore, that my hon. Friend who introduced this Amendment has repeated and underlined some of those questions, and I take it we may look forward to an answer from the Under-Secretary to those questions. I want, if I may, to press further two or three of the points which have been raised with regard to Kenya in particular under the form of this Amendment. It is clear that, from the point of view of the application
of this loan in ways that will promote the general welfare of the people living in East Africa, what happens in Kenya will be the test for the whole of the rest of the Colony. I take it we are entitled to the view that it is because Kenya is the key position for the European population living in East Africa, because it is a population which is not migratory, but is a settled European population, that we are entitled to the view that if things go badly in Kenya with the natives, they are bound to go badly throughout the whole of the rest of East Africa. More than that, I think it is not an unreasonable view to take, that because there is the largest European population settled in Kenya, we ought to expect that from Kenya should emanate every kind of good example of native treatment.
Therefore, I think it quite proper that on general grounds we should have a specific discussion with regard to Kenya in relation to this loan. I asked the Under-Secretary a number of questions with regard to dual policy in relation to Kenya. We have heard again this afternoon the very serious statement made by responsible persons which implied the abandonment of that policy. I hope very much the hon. Gentleman will deal with these allegations, and say quite definitely whether he does intend to have carried out, as far as he is concerned, the definite regulations laid down with regard to that policy. I would like to ask, in the second place, whether the Under-Secretary can say to us anything about the conditions of labour under which men will be employed under this loan scheme as far as Kenya is concerned? I gather that there are at least 100,000 natives already employed by Europeans. I think that that, in relation to a total population of something like 2,500,000 natives, taken in conjunction with the very small European population, is already a very large number of natives to be employed by Europeans. I would like to ask, in drawing upon labour power for the purpose, of the harbour development proposed under this loan for Kenya, what are the conditions which it is suggested should be laid down; whether he proposes to use some kind of compulsion defining these as public works, or whether, if he is not going to do that,
he is prepared to offer wage conditions and general conditions of labour which would be effectively competitive with the labour conditions now prevailing on European estates; whether it is the intention to draw the labour power mainly from the native reserves, or whether we can expect such conditions as will influence a movement of labour away from the worst conditions that obtain on the European estates at the present time?
I would put forward the view that as labour is so very scarce in Kenya at the present time the best service the Government can render, in securing reasonable conditions for the use of this loan, is to see that care is taken that good conditions are secured for the labour which will be employed on these undertakings. Not only should the very grave criticisms which have been levelled against the use of native labour in Kenya be dealt with by the Under-Secretary of State, but we hope that we may have a suggestion that Kenya is going to lead the way with respect to the standard of native conditions, that Kenya is going to set up a white man's standard for the treatment of natives throughout the whole of East Africa. As having a bearing on that, I would like to ask what is the implication of this loan upon the educational provisions made for the natives. I should have thought that after all these years of white influence in that, Colony it would easily have been the most advanced in East Africa in educational matters, but I find, according to a statement made by Sir Frederick Lugard in 1924, based upon the best information he could obtain, that only one out of every 174 children of School-attending age was receiving any kind of education at all in Kenya. I think the Committee will agree that a figure of that kind reflects seriously on the white man's administration of Kenya, particularly when it is borne in mind that the conditions for the education of Europeans in Kenya are so excellent, and that, as was said the other day, the major portion of the finances are provided out of native taxation.
Some time ago I read in the "Encyclopædia Britannica" a statement about the conditions of the Europeans in Kenya. When one hears in mind what must be the lot of the natives from the point of view of train-
ing and education, the picture that was given of the European settlers 10 years after the going there of Lord Delamere provides a very impressive contrast. This is the statement:
In 10 years after the first settler, Lord Delamere, had made the highlands his home, that region was provided with churches, schools, hospitals, newspapers, substantial farmhouses, fenced farms, and race and goff courses.
I am not trying to set up any kind of melodramatic contrast, I am not making any complaint that the Europeans in Kenya have piled up all the traditional and well-recognised facilities of culture and civilisation implied in that statement, but I do suggest that to set that up as a standard for our satisfaction is to adopt a. very deplorable point of view. On a very low conception of what is becoming to us in the treatment of persons of another colour we are warranted in pressing very strongly the claim that under this loan pressure shall be brought to bear by His Majesty's Government to see that improved educational conditions shall be provided. I know that the birder: of complaint all the time has been. "We are willing enough in principle but we have not got the money" and in view of the great need there is for the development of education by the erection of buildings and the institution of educational schemes in the south-east and south-west and all the way down the coast, where practically nothing has been done, apart from the efforts of isolated and, as I think, heroic missionaries, ask the Under-Secretary to see to it that the capital foundation of a scheme is laid down in Kenya, either directly or indirectly, such as v ill be worthy of the admirable professions which have been made on paper.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: As the question of bringing pressure to bear upon natives to induce them to work has been raised here, would like to say a word upon it. I myself have seen it in practice. I have seen pressure used through the chiefs and through the local administration officers, and I have no hesitation in saying that in every case the result was distinctly bad. It is a bad result for labour itself, and in the long run there will be this even worse effect, that if the Government are looked to as a means of bringing pressure to bear
to obtain labour from the reserves for the use of the white farmers the inevitable tendency will be for the natives to regard the Government not as their parents and friends but as their taskmasters as well as the imposers of taxes. From every point of view we should endeavour, as far as possible, to avoid the policy of bringing pressure to bear to induce labour to come out of the reserves. We know by experience that those reserves which supply the best labour for plantations are the industrious reserves where the natives have the fullest opportunity of following their own methods of plantation and growing the crops they are accustomed to grow, and I suggest that the policy that ought to be followed and encouraged is that of free production by natives in their own reserves. Once a native is able to produce and get the value of his labour in his own reserve, he becomes naturally an industrious person, and we get a body of labour in the country that is able, not only to produce in its own reserves for the needs of the tribe, but to go out and supply the labour that is necessary on the white plantations.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I ought, in the first place, to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) how delighted I, as a back bencher, was to hear such a straightforward, admirable statement from the Labour Front Bench; but I must warn him that after that speech he will vie with my cousin Tom Mosley for the position of the best hated member of the Labour party. He has burnt his boats; he has positively shown up Kenya, and that is fatal. It has never been done before. Norman Ley tried to do it in a book, but it has never been done, because the difficulty is that Kenya is occupied by settlers belonging to a very high aristocratic caste. You may criticise almost anything in the British Empire except Kenya. I do not propose to join in the criticism I have done it so often and have made myself so intensely unpopular aver it —[HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all!"]—that I feel now I can leave it in the hands of other Members, like the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) who, when once they have heard the truth, cannot fail to maintain it in the face of all mankind.
But there are one or two points I wish to make in addition to those made by the hon. Member for Peckham. In the first place, is there anybody in the House, whether he be Labour, Liberal or Conservative, who really differs from the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton)? Surely everybody on the Treasury Bench agrees that our duty is complete when we allow the native in Kenya to do as he likes, whether lie likes to work on his own land or whether he likes to work for us. If the native is free to work either for himself or for us, I believe all on these benches would wash their hands of Kenya and believe we had done our duty. Does the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth really think that would be unfair to anybody?

Sir H. CROFT: I quite agree with the hon. Member, but what would he do in a case where an enormous number of natives refused to do any work at all in their reserves or for planters, and forced their womenfolk to do work, a thing which he would be the first to condemn?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should still do as my hon. and gallant Friend would do in this country—I should still say that that is not the duty of the State to make a man work who does not want to. The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that he would be the first to protest against any such action in this country. He would call it "Communism" and "Moscow" at once. All we can do is to leave the native free to work for himself or free to work for us. So long as he has land of his own he is free to work for himself, and that is why I hope we have at last secured that the native reserve in Kenya shall he held sacrosanct and not to be further diminished. But while everybody in the Committee agrees that we ought to leave them free to work for themselves or for a master, everybody on the Treasury Bench knows very well that even the Government of this country cannot secure that liberty for the natives. They know that in dealing with every other Crown Colony in the British Empire, and with every mandated territory, what the Secretary of State thinks is law, but in Kenya it is not so, and that is one of the reasons why I support this Amendment for leaving out Kenya.

Sir H. CROFT: The natives, will not be able to get their crops to the sea until we construct these railways.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member has not read the Report or the Bill, or he would know that there is nothing in this Bill to construct a fresh railway in Kenya. The railway is already there. That does not affect the issue. What does affect the issue is that we are, by this Bill, guaranteeing a loan to a State which repeatedly, not merely once, has threatened to secede from the British Empire. I remember at the time of the Wood-Winterton agreement, when there were schemes drawn up, not merely for secession from the. British Empire, but for interning the Governor and all the Secretaries of State of that State—interning them in quite the Continental manner—and when the Colonial Secretary has made efforts, over and over again, to give justice to the natives in Kenya he has been beaten over and over again by the strength of the feudal aristocracy of Kenya Colony. We should take all these things into account when we guarantee a loan to anybody. We have not been lucky with our loans in Ireland, and I would only lend money where I feel certain of it being paid back with interest. Let the Committee look for a moment at the indebtedness of Kenya already. The indebtedness of the population of Kenya per head is very nearly 50 per cent. more than any other Crown Colony. They are already overburdened with debt. They have borrowed beyond the limit, and in addition to their borrowing, they have had a present from our taxpayers of the full value of the Uganda, Railway.
No doubt we shall be told by the Under-Secretary that presently, about the year 1929 or 1930, that debt is going to be reconsidered, and they may then begin to repay not the capital but the interest. Of course that prospective debt is not taken into account in working out the present indebtedness of Kenya Colony. We ask the Government not to include Kenya in this Bill because it has already borrowed far more money than any of its neighbours, and it has had a gift in the shape of a railway amounting to some £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. After all, the security for this money is not very good in Kenya, and they have already borrowed considerably more than other
people. For these reasons, together with those given in the admirable speech made by the hon. Member for Peckham, I trust the Government will exclude Kenya from this Bill.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been rather amused by the speeches made in support of this Amendment, which, as a matter of fact, finds its chief supporter in Lord Delarnere. It is curious that Members of the Labour party should be anxious to leave Kenya out of this Bill. I do not think that objection is very deep-rooted, and it seems to me to be founded upon the fear that, if Kenya comes under this Bill, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will require certain conditions to be observed which would not otherwise be required. I am very much surprised that hon. Members opposite should wish to leave out Kenya, seeing that they have pressed at several stages of this Bill for more scientific research work and foe native welfare work, and matters of that kind. They have pressed for those reforms and the Government of Kenya have put forward proposals for carrying them out under this Bill. Those proposals have been received since the Committee met.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is nothing in the figures with which we are now dealing for research work.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is not so, because it is definitely proposed here that a part of the loan should be earmarked for the two projects which have yet to be carried out at Tanganyika, and there is also a more far-reaching scheme for research in Kenya.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I draw attention to the items under research on page 40 of the Report. I find that Amani is mentioned and Tanganyika and there is a sum of £30,000 for the Northern Rhodesia Research Station at Mazabuka.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. and gallant Member will read a little further he will find it is fully explained. If you cut out Kenya from this Bill, it will have the effect of cutting out all this research work as far as Kenya is concerned, and it would mean that all the new works at Kilindini Harbour would have to be financed entirely by Kenya, and no doubt
they would raise a loan for that work. It may be that that course may be taken eventually, but that is not the proposal of the Schuster Committee, which considered this problem in the light of the fact that Kilindini, although in Kenya, was the natural outlet for Kenya and Uganda products, and the increasing area of Tanganyika territory. Therefore under these circumstances to separate Kilindini Harbour from this loan would really be rather ridiculous. As I have already stated, there is no proposal before the House or before the Colonial Secretary for any further railway construction in Kenya. There is a certain proposal for the making of roads, which are very badly wanted, and it may be that further buildings will be required. Whether these buildings would be of so permanent a character as to justify expenditure out of loan money is a matter which we have still to consider. Therefore to cut out Kenya from participating in this loan will not do the slightest damage to those gentlemen whom hon. Members opposite seem to object to very strongly.

Sir H. CROFT: Because they are English.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The objection to Kenya raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite seems to be almost entirely due to the existence of Lord Delamere. The whole speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) seemed to be an objection to these settlers, because he contends they are aristocrats and people we do not like, and they develop a class consciousness. With regard to the men who work for Lord Delamere there were 600 or 700 ex-service men, most of them private soldiers, and a good many of them got commissions during the War and have had nothing since but their gratuity. Having visited most parts of that country, I am able to tell the Committee that it is not a case of getting labour for Lord Delamere, because he is not a coffee grower, and he has his own native settlers and has had them for years. Certainly he is never short of labour, and, in fact, always has an excess of labour, and has never asked for more labour. With regard to Arabica coffee-growing, very little labour is required at first, but every autumn there is a great demand for labour for a short period as is the case in the hop industry,
and the result is that all those who have gone in for this particular crop of coffee find they want labour at the same moment, like the hop-growers in Kent, and there is always a difficulty arising in regard to labour at that time. I am able to give on behalf of the Colonial Secretary the definite assurance that there is no intention to modify in any way the dual policy. We are definitely committed to it, and we do mean that emphasis should be laid quite as much on native production as upon working outside the reserves. I agree, from my own experience in different parts of Africa, with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, that it is a remarkable fact that the most industrious and progressive tribe in Africa are those who do both classes of work.
The Kavirondo, who are the highest-skilled agricultural producers in that part of the country, are the people who have been most willing and ready for work of this kind. There are other reserves where the standard of agriculture is immeasurably lower than in the Kavirondo reserves, and where it is the duty of the Government not to compel labour. I entirely agree that we should not use compulsion. We set our faces against it, and as a matter of fact we have definitely given an undertaking against that policy. I think it is the duty of everybody to try and educate these people and encourage them to become better agriculturists. There are places in Kenya where that doctrine can be preached, and should be preached, without anything in the nature of compulsion, in the interest of the people of those reserves.
5.0 P.M.
We have made this clear again and again in a succession of Treaties. Let me say that I cannot accept the gloss put by the "Manchester Guardian" on Sir Edward Grigg's speech, nor can I accept the statements made about the hut tax. Why has it always been Kenya that is singled out? Why has it become fashionable, in so-called progressive circles, never to study what goes on in any other part of Africa? Why is it always Kenya? It is a curious thing that it has become fashionable to wax indignant against a Britisher in Kenya. He is always the plunderer; not the settler in Rhodesia or elsewhere, but the Kenya settler has been singled out to be black-
guarded by people who have never been to those countries. It is so unfair to say that these Britishers are different from any other Britisher.

Mr. MacLAREN: Of course they are not.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member objects to all British colonists, quite irrespective of whether they are—

Mr. MacLAREN: They are land grabbers—all of them.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Members object to all settlers. If that is his view we must say, according to him, "Hands off all these countries; keep the white man out." That is the logical conclusion of his policy. I can assure him that that will not be to the ultimate advantage of the natives, or to the ultimate progress and development of native industry. In Kenya you have special difficulty in the fact that you have a special impact of white civilisasation for the most part on an extremely primitive variety of African civilisation. Compared with Rhodesia or South Africa, the contrast is most extraordinary. I remember saying when I was in Kenya that it struck me that the Masai people were at least a quarter of a million years behind the Kavirondo, and you have more primitive tribes in Kenya than you have in other parts of Africa. Therefore, all these questions do require constant supervision and constant care.
But one thing, undoubtedly, has made the problem more difficult; that is these kind of attacks upon both the Government and particularly upon the administrative officers, who do their very best to hold the scales even. They are still regarded, and rightly regarded, as the friends of the people who look after their interests, and the attacks upon Kenya will only succeed in bringing out, one side of the question and they will ignore every other factor. The promoters of these attacks are determined to make out that these people have wrong intentions and that they are simply land grabbers and do not care twopence about the natives. If that is the attitude taken up and if to these people are going to he attributed nothing but base motives, well, God help us!

Mr. D. GREENALL: They are the same people as those who grabbed the land of this country.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Well, honestly, if the hon. Member will go and see who some of these settlers are, he would find that the vast mass of them are small people who never come out of the country, whose whole lives and living are bound up in the country. Many of them live in small bush-made huts. I have seen them. Their holdings are from 120 to 200 acres; they work entirely with their own hands and with the help of a few boys. I have seen them opening up their country, and to imagine that they are the slave drivers of Kenya is really ridiculous. I hope the Committee will take a more charitable view of Kenya. We shall never help Kenya to get on the lines of progress—and progress has been very rapid in the last few years—unless there is really a little more sympathy and unless rather fewer attacks are made. I am perfectly convinced that if a little more sympathy were shown and a little more interest in the problems and difficulties before the Government were forthcoming, we should get greater co-operation. The Government are unable to accept this Amendment. It really defeats the object which hon. Members opposite have in view and stultifies the whole position they take up. I ask the Committee, in view of the speeches made and especially the kind of arguments used, to show by their vote that on this side of the House we do rather resent this perpetual lecturing of Kenya and this singling out of that particular dependency for this particular kind of attack.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The hon. Member who has just sat down is very anxious to know why Kenya is being singled out in these debates regarding East Africa. I think it will be fairly easy to provide him with the answer and I will attempt to do so immediately. When we come to discuss these questions, and particularly the East African settlement question, we have to start from some common ground. I think it will be acceptable to hon. Members on the other side of the Committee as well as to those on this side that the good common ground from which to start would be the declaration made by the Duke of Devonshire, when Colonial Secretary, in 1921. In that
declaration the Duke of Devonshire, who was then Colonial Secretary, made it abundantly clear that in our future relationships with those areas the interest, of the natives should be paramount. Taking that as a standard of judgment in regard to this particular problem before us this afternoon, I propose to show that, as a matter of fact, that declaration of the then Colonial Secretary has been departed from, if not in spirit, certainly in substance. Kenya has become in these debates almost the acid test of our policy in Eastern Africa, and the reason for that I think is pretty clear. The Under-Secretary seems to think that our special bête noir in that particular part of the world is Lord Delamere. We have no particular objection to Lord Delamere as such. We merely regard his as representative of a certain type of mind. He represents a point of view, he represents a certain philosophy, and I think I shall be able to show that Lord Delamere by that philosophy represents many among the citizens and settlers of that area, and that that philosophy is reflected in some measure by the public statements of officials governing that area.
Let us take some three or four quite good and sound and fair standards of judgment. What has been the attitude in recent years in Kenya in regard to native labour? Who has not heard in this House of, I had almost said,, the disgraceful story in regard to the turning out of the Masai tribe, how they have been moved from one place to the other and how now they are finally settled in a portion of that country which everyone will admit is the least productive part of that area. Here are people "whose interests," says the Duke of Devonshire, "are paramount" and yet they are moved from the more productive part of the area to the less productive part. Will the hon. Member tell us who has gone there instead? Will the hon. Member tell us who is there? Will he deny that people like Lord Delamere have that land? Are we not entitled to argue that the coming of Lord Delamere in this way is significant of a definite movement which, if it is not arrested, will very soon land us in very considerable difficulties in these areas. I take another fact. In the official report of the governors' conference we
have the statement that the highlands of these areas are lands which are not suitable for the natives of the area at all; they are not equipped, either mentally or otherwise, for living and earning their living in these particular areas, and therefore we presume that these areas are to be reserved for non-native settlers. We submit that if this point of view is held in this part of the world, not merely by Lord Delamere and his friends, but by the representatives of the Government of that area, we, are entitled to entertain some measure of misgiving. It does not hurt us or disturb us to hear that, for the moment. Lord Delamere takes our point of view in regard to this particular Motion. He has his own reasons for taking that line. We know that on account of the repeated discussions in this House Lord Delamere and his friends just now are extremely anxious to get up a movement in favour of self-government for Kenya so as to remove the discussion entirely from the House of Commons in Britain to a much more agreeable atmosphere where Lord Delamere and his friends will be more in control. Take the test of taxation. Will the hon. Gentleman deny that it is a fair statement to make that the burden of taxation as regards natives and settlers is extremely unfair? Is it not fair to say that man for man the native bears a far heavier share of taxation than does the settler. Is not that true?

Mr. ORMSBY-G0RE: Let us get this point quite clear. Does the hon. Member suggest that the head tax for natives is lower than the head tax for Europeans. man for man?

Mr. JONES: Perhaps I have stated the matter wrongly. Let me put it in this way. Is it not fair to say that the proportion of taxation of the native, having regard to his earning capacity, is much greater than the measure of taxation borne by the settler. That is a point I make. If that be true, are we not entitled to say that it is indicative of a policy which, if it grows, will land us in a condition of affairs where the pledge of the Duke of Devonshire, the then Colonial Secretary, will be brought to naught? That is the point I want to make. What happens, as a matter of fact, in regard to this taxation? As I said on Tuesday, the native can only pay
his taxation in one or two ways. He can either pay it out of the products of his own land, his own crops, or out of his wages which he receives by working for other people. Everyone knows perfectly well that—I had almost said it is the custom, but perhaps that is putting it too highly—but everyone knows that pressure will be brought to bear upon the native to leave his own settlement in order to work for other people. I want to fortify myself with an official pronouncement in this matter. Mr. Denham, the Acting Governor of Kenya, made the statement, which appeared in the "East African Standard" of 14th March, 1925, and he used much the same words as those used in the pronouncement of the Duke of Devonshire. This is what was said by the Acting Governor of Kenya, as reported in the "East African Standard" of the 14th March, 1925—some years after the declaration of the Duke of Devonshire:
There is the strongest possible moral obligation on the Government of the country "—
I would ask the Committee to mark that—a moral obligation—
to give the fullest possible assistance it can in securing to the European settler in this country the benefit of the developments which he has created to the lasting advantage of the Colony. I wish to make it perfectly clear that such is the policy of the administration, and that the Government expects every administrative officer to give all possible encouragement to the labour within their district to work on the lands which have been opened up by the settlers.
Had it been some insignificant, citizen who was expressing his own personal opinion, it would not have mattered, but when a Government official is definitely invited to use his governmental authority and influence, obviously we are in an entirely different situation, and our ground for misgiving—or, shall I say, suspicion—in regard to the condition of affairs in Kenya is, indeed, well founded. Apropos of this policy of bringing pressure to bear upon natives through the medium of taxation, may I quote the words of the Governor of Tanganyika Territory? I admit that this applies to his territory, but let me assume that the conditions in this matter are the same. In a despatch covering a Report by Major Orde-Browne, he says, on page 10:
To my mind it is of vital importance, in a country like this, that. no attempt should be made to force the native to work for others by imposing taxation which he cannot earn the means to pay sinless he leaves his district to work on the non-native plantations, and I have steadfastly refused to increase the tax in the districts in which the natives cannot augment their earnings by working for themselves or on such Government works, if any, as may offer. Coercion of labour by pressure of direct taxation is little, if anything, removed from coercion of labour by force. The latter is the more honest course.
That, I submit, is a judgment arrived at by a responsible officer in that part of Africa, and a judgment, therefore, which is entitled to every possible consideration, and which is based on his own experience of the operation of this type of taxation. I submit, therefore, that we are entitled to know how the labour for these particular pieces of work is to be recruited. We are told already—indeed, if I remember rightly, it is in the hon. Gentleman's own Report—that the reservoir of labour in German East Africa, and particularly in this area, is very limited. If it is limited, then the number of men who can be relied upon in the normal course of things to offer themselves Voluntarily for this form of labour is, therefore, limited. What guarantee is there that there will be an adequate supply of labour for the particular schemes which pertain to the Kenya area?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I apologise for not dealing with that. The particular schemes dealing with the Kenya area form part of the Kilindini Harbour works. A comparatively very small force of native labour is required on those works down at the coast. All that labour will be local and Voluntarily recruited there will be no compulsion there; but there will only be a few hundred, because much of it is not the sort of work that natives can do. For all the under-water work. the construction of big cement blocks and harbour equipment, and that kind of thing, we have had on the existing works from the first almost entirely European labour.

Mr. JONES: I am obliged for that explanation, but may I add this point? On the assumption that the labour will be entirely Voluntary, can we have a further assurance from the hon. Gentleman that that labour will he paid at a reasonable rate, which will guarantee to these people a sufficiency of the things they require?

Mr. ORMSBY GORE: The hon. Member knows, of course, that the rates of wages down at the coast at Mombasa are a good deal higher already than in the interior. The coast rate is a good deal higher than anywhere else in the country.

Mr. JONES: I have directed attention to two tests, the first in regard to native labour, whether conscript or otherwise, and the second in regard to taxation. I want, if I may, to put a third test, as indicative—I will put it no higher—of a trend of mind which still prevails in official quarters in that part of the world. In the Report of the Governor's Conference there is a paragraph on page 9 which I find it extremely difficult to understand, and of which I should like some explanation. It is in regard to the construction of roads, and it reads thus:
That rules should he drafted to protect the roads maintained at the public expense from destruction by animal-drawn transport, either by limiting the weight of vehicles or by compelling the use of certain types of tyres.
I want to ask whether, if these public roads are going to be constructed out of public funds, and ultimately paid for in part by the natives themselves, it is to be understood from that paragraph that the native, who will not be able to provide himself with mechanically-propelled vehicles, and will be compelled, I presume, to fall hack on animal-drawn transport, is to be, cleared off the roads for which he has had to pay? It occurred to me in reading the paragraph that that might be so, but I may have drawn a wrong conclusion. I should like to have an assurance on the point.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is practically very little wheeled transport of any kind in that country other than the European-owned mechanical transport, and it is absolutely essential to protect the lighter roads from heavy lorries by prohibiting the use of solid tyres and insisting on pneumatic tyres. The wheeled vehicle, of course, was unknown until our introduction of it; the native did not know it, and hardly uses it even to-day. Most of the native transport is done by head-carriers and pack animals.

Mr. JONES: I am still not quite clear. Even assuming that the ordinary vehicles that we know are not very common there, what form of transport will the native
be able to use on these roads if the use of the roads is going to be limited very largely to vehicles which have tyres in the ordinary sense? How is that to be done, and how is the native going to be protected? Does it not mean, in effect, that, if this be applied, the native will not be able to avail himself of the roads, and will be driven off the roads entirely?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is not a true picture at all. The native producer in the Kavironda reserve, for instance, carries his property to the nearest market and sells it there, and the Indian trader, or, in some cases, the European trader, provides such transport as is necessary to take it away. There is a certain number of Dutch transport drivers from South Africa, but they are the only people who use the old-fashioned ox wagon and things of that kind.

Mr. JONES: I am bound to say I am still unconvinced on the matter. It looks to me as if the native is going to be, reduced to carrying his merchandise, whatever it may be, upon his head in the way that is usual in those areas.
My fourth test is with regard to education. Sir Hugh Clifford, who himself is very well known in those parts of the world, has already said that the provision for education is pitifully small—those are his very words; and the Phelps-Stokes Commission also emphasised the extraordinary paucity of the arrangements with regard to education and development. The hon. Gentleman has directed our attention to page 40 of the Schuster Report. As I understand it, the total sum allocated on page 40 for research is £39,000. The hon. Gentleman told us for the first tibia this afternoon, I think, that there is an intention to put aside a certain sum for research. Are we not entitled to know what is the exact sum which is to be set aside? If we refer to the hon. Gentleman's own Report on East Africa, we see that he reiterates—and in that matter we all agree with him—that the first condition of progress in that part of the world is that the native himself shall he equipped educationally for the work that lies ahead of him. For these reasons I entirely associate myself with the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), in the hope that before this Debate comes to an end we shall have a definite assurance,
from whichever representative of the Government speaks later on, that Kenya will be brought into line with the pronouncement made on behalf of the British Government as long ago as 1921 by the then Colonial Secretary.

Mr. GILLETT: The speech of the Under-Secretary was, I think, satisfactory to some of us on these benches, and we were very glad to hear some of the statements he made in regard to policy; but when he came to deal with the question of the views held by the settlers, and accused us of constantly attacking them, he seemed to be trying to shut his eyes to certain fundamental differences which, if I may say so, are possibly differences between himself and the settlers as well as between the settlers and those who sit on this side of the House. The hon. Gentleman has laid down the policy, and I can only say that I hope the Government are going to carry out that policy, hut, while I believe that he himself intends that it shall be so, I have serious doubts whether in coming years it will be the policy that the Government will finally carry out. I do not, myself, believe in the slightest that the views expressed by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies on this question of native labour are the views held by the vast mass of the settlers in Kenya itself. I should like to know whether the hon. Member himself would deny that. As a matter of fact, there were points in his speech which really agreed with it, because he accused us of agreeing with the view of Lord Delamere. But why did Lord Delamare not want to have this loan? It was because he did not want the control of the Colonial Office. Why does he not want the control of the Colonial Office? Because the views of the Colonial Office, if we may take them as being the views of the Under-Secretary, are not the views of Lord Delamere. If the Noble Lord were in agreement with the Colonial Office, he would have no objection to taking these loans, but would say the more of them the better, and that is what I want to suggest to the Under-Secretary.
I am rather fortified in this by a speech which was delivered earlier this year by one of the members of the Legislative Assembly. He said:
After thinking the matter over very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that
the time has arrived when the people must make up their minds to take a firm stand against the Government's policy."—
He is dealing with the question of native labour—
It is entirely a question of the Government's policy. If the natives were given to understand that the Government wanted them to come out and work for the settlers, they would come. We know that from our experience. In the past it was always possible to recruit in reserves where the official in charge was favourable to European settlement—there was no compulsion about it; his personal influence was enough. And we always had difficulty in getting labour from reserves where the official was anti-settler. This so-called dual policy that we hear so much about is farcical. It is being made an excuse to allow tens of thousands of adult male natives to idle their lives away in the reserves while their womenfolk do the work for them and while valuable crops rot on our estates and farms. What is the use of talking about fresh development …?
He goes on to say:
At any rate, so far as I am concerned, I have made up my mind that it is entirely a question of Government policy; that the people have got to make a firm stand against the present policy; and that we should refuse to consider these loan proposals, or any other loan proposals, or any increase in taxation, until Government adopts a labour policy that will provide the labour required for our present development and the big schemes of development that are under consideration.
What does that mean? He may be quite irresponsible, as some Members are in the House of Commons, and the Under-Secretary might suggest that he does not represent the view of the settlers. It seems, to me from all we hear from Lord Delamere, that his policy is very much the same and that this represents the policy of the settlers and that they want the Government to bring the natives out to do the work they require. We are not attacking the white settlers. We are simply saying we believe this is their policy, and it is not our policy. We are not reflecting upon them. They may be patriotic and keen on doing what is for the benefit of their country but we do not agree with their methods. The principles laid down by my right hon. Friend as to whether a man should be compelled to work or not are our views. They are evidently not the views of the settlers. It seems to me the Under-Secretary has ignored this point. I should like to have heard whether the Government really think the views expressed by the Under-Secretary with regard to native labour
represent the views of the settlers and whether they command the support of the settlers in the policy they have laid before us. We have only to look at one or two other questions that indicate it. One of the Reports of the East Africa Commission said the native reserves were in a state of stagnation. Complaint was made in Kenya that the natives had not been encouraged to become agriculturists, producing the crops they export. These are the reports that we have received.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is very actively being dune now.

Mr. GILLETT: This Report is two years old. It seems to me these factors support the argument I was laying before the Committee, that the Government policy is not the settlers' policy. There is a good deal of point in what was suggested by my right hon. Friend that we are going to lend money to a Colony which in a short time may have self-government, or at any rate will be asking for it, and the Government might extend the concession to them. Satisfactory as many parts of the Under-Secretary's speech were, I repudiate his attack upon us for attacking the settlers. We are perfectly at liberty to express our views. The only thing we are saying is that they disagree with the views we hold, and we shall continue to disagree with them and to maintain that the first interest is that of the vast mass of the population, who are the blacks and not the few white settlers.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): We have had a Debate of some length on the general administration of Kenya and the policy of the Government. I am not complaining about that, but I should like to bring the Committee back to the actual Amendment and the subject matter of the Bill. I will only say, on the question of general policy, that the Government adhere to the dual policy of giving to the native the fullest chance in his country, but also giving the white settler a chance to succeed, that being the fairest policy in the long run to both sides. It may involve more difficulty at the moment than absolutely excluding the white man and keeping the country a kind of game reserve for the black man, but I believe we can carry it through. Anyone who
went out there would find that among the great mass of moderate men—not necessarily represented in some extreme speeches—there has been a growing recognition that, after all, they can only be a small proportion. They have always got to live together with the natives. Co-operation with the natives is essential to the well-being of the country. There is a growing recognition that the dual policy is the right one and that they have a duty towards the natives. I would ask hon. Members opposite to believe that our fellow-citizens out there are not only concerned with their own immediate advancement, not only with what I might call the idealism of economic development, but they are also increasingly recognising their duty towards the native inhabitants of the country and taking an increasing interest in the welfare of the country.
If I may came back to the actual proposals of the Bill and the general scheme of development in Africa, the transport scheme is admitted by everyone to he in the interest of the native at least as much as in the interest of the whites. That scheme is to be carried out under the general guarantee of the House. The loans raised do not necessarily correspond with the area that is benefited. The improvement of the port of Kilindini is at least as much to the benefit of the natives in Kenya, as it is to the benefit of the white settlers of Uganda. Mention has been made of research. Since the Schuster Committee reported, the Government of Kenya have laid before us proposals for research, more particularly into the welfare of the natives, into the whole social life and conditions and the education of the natives on a far larger scale than any proposal that has ever been made in arty country. They are proposing that something like £100,000 should be set aside for research, mainly into the conditions of native welfare. From what I know of the present feeling of the settlers, they will in the main support proposals of that kind and I believe that is the right way to do it. Criticism with imperfect knowledge at this end creates a dogged antagonism and an unreasoning attitude, but where we can get the settlers in Kenya to help on the same lines and become enthusiastic about the things
we are keen on, we on this side can help Kenya with our guarantee, to embark on this project of research, and the settlers, like reasonable men, will he ready to accept it. I hope, having had this very full ventilation of the general position in Kenya, and hon. Members opposite having drawn attention again to their justifiable feeling that the interest of the natives ought to be carefully watched, we may now proceed with the main business of the Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: I should not have intervened but for some remarks that fell from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He seemed to me to be trying to score a point in a way I do not think very gentlemanly. He seemed to suggest that I was less intelligent than he was because I had not been to Africa.

Mr. 0 RMSBY-GORE: I apologise to the hon. Member most humbly. It never entered my mind, and if I were so bad a speaker as to convey so absolutely false an impression, I was quite wrong. I did not go to Africa with my own money. I was sent by the Labour Government, with a former Labour colleague, and I much regret that he is absent.

Mr. HARDIE: I am glad to have that, but the language the hon. Gentleman used made that impression general on these benches. Of course, it would never do to have that kind of measure. If we came to measure that way—take your own benches, packed as they are by your 200 majority—

The CHAIRMAN: The benches are not mine.

Mr. HARDIE: Not your benches, Sir, but the benches occupied by the present Government. They have not a knowledge of mining, but they assume they have a knowledge of everything connected with mining. If they use that kind of argument see where they would land themselves. We also had remarks from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). He was trying to draw crocodile tears about the women in Kenya. I was thinking about the women in Lancashire and in some of the mills in Glasgow. I was thinking about the slavish conditions that women, even in households,
have to go through in carrying out domestic duties under all kinds of difficulties, both as to the condition of the house and economic conditions. Where they have such weather as they have in Kenya the women are freed from the slavish labour that takes place here. There are other people in the House who may not have been in Africa but who have their observation here, and surely it is a very silly thing if you cannot make comparisons.
Coming to the question of labour itself, you cannot call labour free labour when you have to impose taxation to get some of it. The question is, if it were not for the tax could you get that labour. If you could get it otherwise why have this compulsion through the tax? You cannot say under present conditions that the workers are absolutely free to do this or not. You know they would not come near that class of work. The native has an aversion to he changed on to different crops, but it has been admitted that when you leave him free to the work he is used to he goes on in his own way. The only way that you are getting labour there is by using a form of compulsion, which comes from the fact that you put a tax upon him. I think it is a terrible thing that the Government, claiming to be enlightened and Christian, is going to use methods to enforce labour. We are asked why we take up Kenya, and it is suggested that we do not know the conditions and that we want to injure Kenya. We do not need to study the conditions of Kenya alone to know what land robbery is. We know what land robbery is here, and when the same sort, of gentlemen who do that sort of thing here go out there—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid this is hardly in order in connection with the question of a loan to Kenya.

Mr. HARDIE: We only know Kenya by a name which is applied to certain land. I was dealing with the question as to whether or not we should do certain things. We on this side are against any kind of loan in a way that will find itself into the pockets of the landlords through the filching of other people's land, and that seems to be what this thing comes to. For these reasons, I am glad to oppose this loan.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: The speeches to which I have listened tempt me to say a few words. Elaborate theories have been built up on the other side of the House, especially by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) from Reports and Blue Books. It seemed to me, from the little I know of the subject, to have very small relation to the facts of the case. I have not been in Kenya, but I heard a great deal about it when I was in South Africa two years ago. I had the advantage of traveling for a short time with Lord Delamere, who seems to be the motive of the speeches of hon. Members opposite. Lord Delamere is doing very considerable work in the useful development of Kenya. In South Africa generally and in East Africa, as I understand it, the natives are very glad to work for the white settlers. By so doing they make a little money, go back to live patriarchally among their wives, and get their wives to work for them. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that the slavery of the natives, of which they talk so much, does not exist. The real slavery is of the wives of the natives to the natives themselves. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Peckham and the hon. Member for Caerphilly that they should go out to Kenya and preach to the natives the emancipation of women. I do not promise that they would be very well received. It might be well for them to take a bodyguard of those adherents who have been so much to the fore in recent elections, especially in Hull.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I should not have risen, but for one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville). He said—and I think it would be a mistake if we allowed it to be recorded without its being denied— that he had met Lord Delamere and had been favourably impressed with Lord Delamere's practices and policy, and that he had come to the conclusion that the natives in Kenya were very pleased to work for Lord Delamere. Here is Lord Delamere's policy in a nutshell:
If the policy was to be continued that every native was to be a land-holder of a sufficient area on which to establish himself, then the question of obtaining a sufficient labour supply would never be settled.
In other words, if we allowed the native to produce for himself, he will not produce for Lord Delamere. One further word as regards slavery. The hon. Member says that there is nothing like slavery there. What does he call it? Sixteen shillings a month wages for Voluntary labour; 14s. a month for compulsory labour, and a fine, a penalty, of 150s. for disobeying any lawful order given by the head-man. That is, a tine of lq months' wages for disobeying the order of the boss. It is absolute rubbish for the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) to say that we have any hostility towards the development of Kenya by British settlers. Not at all. We are as keen on giving everyone out there a chance as he is, but we believe we can prove that the way not to develop the British Empire, the way not to have prosperity, the way not to have increased purchasing power, but the way to create misery, oppression and, M the end, dispersion of the Empire, is the Delamere policy. We believe that the way to promote prosperity in the Empire is to pursue the West African policy, the policy that has been pursued in Nigeria and the policy that is being pursued in the Gold Coast. We ask the Ministers in charge to do everything possible to obstruct the Delamere policy and to do everything possible to allow the native to produce for himself, to increase his purchasing power, because by that means, and that means only, do we believe that prosperity can come there.
It is because we are hostile to the Delamere policy in Kenya, because we do not believe that forced labour is any good, that it is alien to British traditions and that it cannot be successful anywhere, that we propose to do everything we possibly can, on every possible occasion, to raise the matter in this House. It is true what the Under-Secretary said, that Delamere wants to cut the painter. There is no patriotism about Delamere and his gang. They care nothing whatever about the British Empire or the prosperity of the natives. They are prepared to-morrow to cut loose. They actually do not want this loan, and the reason why they do not want the loan is because they are afraid, that is, Delamere and some of his friends, of the present Colonial Secretary and the Under-Secretary.
They do not want to have any control exercised by the Colonial Office. I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth in this House, by interruption and otherwise, should give support to the most reactionary gang of exploiters who appear to be operating in the British Empire, whether they were born in this country or not, and who if they were born in this country are actively desirous of getting out of it.

Sir H. CROFT: To try to pretend that Lord Delamere is the sole settler in East Africa, as we have heard suggested here to-day is absurd.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I never suggested that.

Sir H. CROFT: That is the suggestion that has come from the Labour benches. We are told that this is all a question of labour for Lord Delamere. I will tell the hon. Members why I would like to see Kenya developed. There are in East Africa 10,000 settlers. They are simply fighting for their existence. Of course, you can ruin them, but I believe the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) wants to help them. At this very moment men who have been struggling for five and six years, and have just been able to pay their way, are unable to collect their coffee crops simply because they cannot get labour. I do hope we shall not have this hostility to 10,000 men who are just as British and just as great lovers of freedom as the hon. Member himself. Instead of having this perpetual criticism we should give them a little help. That is why I support the Government in regard to this loan.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would not have intervened but for the statement just made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), for whom I have the greatest respect. He was the head and front of the accusation that the Labour party were opposed to any English settlers in Kenya. The Under-Secretary says that the Labour party always attack Kenya, that we are the sole source of natural vice, and that we have no arguments behind our criticisms of the Colonial Office attitude towards the Kenya problem. I would point out that Kenya is not the only Colony where British planters have to get
native labour. If you go to Ceylon you find a larger number of British planters there than there are in Kenya. Do we ever attack the Ceylon planters? Do we ever have reason to attack them? The Ceylon planters get their labour on lines which do not involve protests from the Labour party, or the criticisms of humane persons. It is true that in the past there were certain difficulties in Ceylon. In Ceylon they do not have a hut tax to drive the native to work; they do not take the land from the natives in order to drive them to work; they do not have a pass law so that the native who goes away from his job goes to gaol. They get on without any of these things in Ceylon, and why not in Kenya?
It is because we see that in some Colonies the British planter can develop the country and develop it wonderfully as he has done in Ceylon without trenching upon the rights of humanity, that we ask the Colonial Office to try to see that the methods adopted in Kenya shall be more like the methods of Ceylon. We know perfectly well that our criticism is one which the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Under-Secretary really have at the back of their minds. We do not like having to attack English people; but the Colonial Secretary and the Under-Secretary know perfectly well that, really, their criticism is exactly the same as ours, but the difficulty is that it is a very difficult policy to carry out. We want to strengthen them in what they believe to be the right policy. It is not fair, in these circumstances, for the Under-Secretary or for any hon. Member to attack the Labour party as being anti-British, anti-settler, because we try to secure that justice for the native of Kenya which is the real glory of British administration all over the world.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out the word "ten" and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
The adoption of my Amendment would mean that the guaranteed loan for East Africa would be 5,000,000 instead of £10,000,000. My object in moving the Amendment is that I think in this Bill we give the Colonial Office and the Treasury much too free a hand. When we read the Schuster Report we see that by far the larger part of the projects
considered by that Committee have been turned down, provisionally depending upon there being a satisfactory future inquiry or survey. I have gone through the various items approved by the Committee and it seems to me that if we reduce the amount of the guarantee from £10,000,000 to £5,000,000 we shall give the Government power to guarantee finances for every scheme which is likely to be undertaken within a few years or which is likely to secure the approval of the Treasury in future. For instance, the Schuster Committee in dealing with the £1,400,000 estimate as being desirable for improving the main line in Kenya, very rightly point out that most of the improvements on this line ought to be carried out out of revenue, that the revenue is piling up and is being used as a sinking fund, that the sinking fund ought to be employed for making these improvements and that this is not a fair and proper occasion for floating a fresh loan. In spite of that definite recommendation by the Committee, we find £1,400,000 in the £10,000,000 for which we are asked to guarantee a loan. I go down the list. Tanganyika, general improvements on existing lines, £634,000.
6.0 P.M.
Again, all this ought to be met out of revenue. If railway finance is carried out on sound lines charges such as these should be met year after year out of revenue. That would seem better than floating a special loan for what normally is current expenditure. Then I come to the Zambesi bridge and coal railway. We are now passing, definitely, a guarantee of £1,500,000 for the building of a Zambesi bridge and coal railway, and after we have passed this it will he absolutely impossible for the House to make any further protest. It will be in the hands of the Colonial Secretary to decide at any moment, without any further consultation with this House, the guaranteeing of this large sum of money. I sympathise with the objections to this scheme which have been put forward by an hon. Member on this side, and I want to offer one further objection. It is this. We have two rival schemes put forward for tapping this territory, one through Dodoma and Fife, and the other, the scheme involving a Zambesi bridge, a good part of which has already been laid. It is true that the Zambesi route
is shorter than the other, but it ends in a Portuguese port, and I think the railway is Portuguese for the last part. The other railway ends in a British port, and I maintain that it is more desirable to spend this money on developing this export trade from the Zambesi through the British port of Dar-es-Salaam rather than through the Portuguese port. And a great part of this £1,500,000 will be spent in developing coal mines which, I believe, are in Portuguese territory.
If we are going in for guarantees of this kind for goodness' sake let us see that they are for the development of a British port, rather than a Portuguese port, and for British coalfields rather than coalfields in Portuguese territory, or which are partly in Portuguese territory. I am inclined to think also that the Zambesi Bridge itself is in Portuguese territory. This is one of the questions on which, I think, the House would like to reserve its power to check or perhaps alter later, if need be. Are we now to pass this, and allow the Government to spend this large sum of money without giving the. House an opportunity of saying whether it prefers the route through Dodoma and Fife, which will develop the same territory? I could go through the various items in this Report, but it is obvious that for £5,000,000 we can cover every single one of the schemes which is likely to be undertaken for the next two years. I do not like to give the Colonial Secretary a free hand. An admirable suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) that the whole question of trustee securities should be reconsidered, and that the Crown Colonies should have the right to issue their own loans. It would get over the necessity of our having to guarantee these different loans.

Mr. AMERY: I hoped I had made it clear on the Second Reading of this Bill that the only reason why we have put down the comprehensive sum of £10,000,000 was in order to enable the work on these various schemes to go on continuously without coming to a stop, with all the consequential waste and disturbance, by having to come again to this House and ask for a further guarantee. It is not easy to get a Bill of this kind through the House very quickly; this Bill was introduced a long time ago. The various projects approved
by the Schuster Committee, including the expenditure on the bigger trunk lines, do amount to something like £10,000,000, and they are evenly distributed over the various territories. There is roughly £1,500,000 in connection with Nyasaland, £1,500,000 for Uganda, £1,500,000 for the Uganda Railway, £2,500,000 for the various ports, and about £2,000,000 for railways in Tanganyika, and if we only sanction a loan of £5,000,000 it would mean that we should scarcely have begun work on these various projects when we should have to come back to this House for further powers. I suggest that, as the House approved wholeheartedly these general projects, it should not stultify them now by accepting an Amendment which reduces the amount to £5,000,000.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I agree with a certain amount of what the Colonial Secretary has said, but having studied the Schuster Report very carefully, I cannot see why £5,000,000 should not be agreed to at the present time, and the Colonial Secretary should come back in two or three years' time for a further £5,000,000. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) stated the various projects that are suggested in the Schuster Report. I propose to take rather a different point of view, and to deal with the Amendment from the point of view of this nation, Great Britain. We had a long Debate yesterday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wound up the discussion and in his last few sentences, referring to our finances, he said:
Our finances have been stricken and wounded by the long coal stoppage.
Those are very important words, and I appeal to the Colonial Secretary to realise the financial position of this country. I know that he is keen on development, and I am most anxious for development. We cannot have proper development unless we progress by degrees. In pre-War days there used to be grants-in-aid. In 1911 there was a grant-in-aid of £250,000, rather different to a 210,000,000 loan, and when we consider that our national debt to-day is bigger than it was in 1919, that our interest charges on the national debt are bigger in 1925–26 than they were in 1921 and 1922, I feel confident the Colonial Secretary will understand the gravity of
the national situation. In "The Times" of to-day we have a most interesting article with regard to the United States of America, showing that while our taxation is £15 2s. 6d. per head of the population, in the United States it is only £6 per head of the population. It is also shown that our National Debt is £160 per head of the population, and that the United States national debt is £36 per head of the population. What important figures! I know the Colonial Secretary will say that this money will never be needed, but that is not the way to look at it from a business point of view. I am sure he heard the able speech of the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Greenall) two days ago. He struck a note of warning with regard to this continual finance, and also the Prime Minister stated at the Scarborough meeting in October:
The last months through which we have passed have postponed for some time any prospects of ameliorative legislation which requires money.
Again an important warning and words. Although this does not necessarily require money, it is a guarantee of the principal and interest, and it means our credit. I listened with great interest to what the Colonial Secretary said two days ago with regard to the Palestine loan. He said that Palestine was in a position to have the loan. It is not a Palestine loan; it is a British Government loan, a British taxpayer loan, and I contend that to say it is a Palestine loan is losing the whole gist of our national finance. It is most important that Members of this Committee should realise the enormous liabilities we have taken on in the last few months. Dominion history offers many warnings that over-ambitious schemes should be very carefully watched, and I think a loan of this sort, if it was for £5,000.000 instead of £10,000,000, could be worked on a more commercial basis. It ought to be on a sort of commercial basis. If only the Colonial Secretary will consider how capital, population and savings, are intertwined, I think he will agree to the Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: May I beg leave to say only a word or two on this proposal. While I appreciate what was said by the right hon. and gallant Member s For Newcastle-under-Lyme
(Colonel Wedgwood) with regard to the suggestion that came from me in reference to the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, I cannot agree with him in the Amendment he has submitted to the House. The point before us is that this guarantee involves a contingent liability on the taxpayers of this country of £10,000,000, and the hon. and gallant Member proposes to reduce that amount for the moment to £5,000,000. It is perfectly true that the Schuster Committee, after reviewing all the schemes proposed in East Africa, came to the conclusion that only about £1,500,000 was immediately required, and that other schemes would call for a great deal of investigation and inquiry. But the point which seems to be before the Committee is this, that it is important to give such a guarantee as will make the schemes which are now to proceed secure and safe, and as far as possible, attractive in character. The idea as I understand it is that an Advisory Committee should consider each scheme, review the general prospects and look particularly to its finance, and then make a recommendation to the Treasury substantially on the lines of the Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Act.
Presumably the Treasury in this country will not sanction the guarantee of any loan at all unless they are satisfied that the general position is secure. If we in this Bill limit the aggregate amount to £5,000,000, what will happen will be this, that certain immediate schemes will proceed, but, as the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs has rightly pointed out, there will be doubt or delay in connection with some of the schemes as to getting another Measure through the House of Commons to guarantee sums which everybody knows will be required in the future, but for which legislative sanction has not been obtained. In the promotion of the earlier schemes, people will be inclined to argue that they are on a limited scale and that they have no guarantee that the next step will be taken. In my judgment, instead of helping the loan in the open market that will penalise it. Even with the British Government guarantee thrown in, the rate of interest may be raised which the Governments in the territories have to pay. That would be a very undesirable result. For that reason I oppose this Amendment. While £10,000,000 is a
comparatively limited charge, and while we cannot ignore the argument that all these things add up, a case can be made here for £10,000,000 on the ground of economy in beneficial arrangement of the initial sums. Unless we undertake at least this contingent liability, we may not only make it more difficult for these territories, but actually prejudice a great deal of the development to which we are commonly committed.

Mr. W. BAKER: I should be glad to have some more definite information with regard to the Government's policy. I am not in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, and I have no desire whatever to reduce the sum from £10,000,000 to £5,000,000. I endeavoured to make a point during an earlier discussion with regard to the Schuster Committee and the force which was to be given to the words which have been repeatedly used by the Secretary for the Colonies and the Under-Secretary, namely, that the Schuster Committee's Report has been accepted. My difficulty is this: If the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Schuster Committee are we to understand that the Governrnent are willing to recommend the Schuster Committee Report as the general basis which lays down the order of priority, the relative order of importance, of the various schemes and proposals? I believe that that is the basis on which the House is accepting the proposal which is before it now. But when I refer to the speech which the Colonial Secretary made in this House in July last I come to my difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said:
The Committee also recommended in Tanganyika the Dodoma-Fife Line at an estimated cost of £2,700,000, in connection with which £46,000 is allotted for surveys, after which new methods of financing construction will have to be considered, if necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1926; col. 1332, Vol. 198.]
That seems to me to be very definite indeed. But when I turn to page 13 of the Schuster Committee's Report, I find these words:
We are agreed that in the present state of its finances the Government of the Tanganyika territory could not support the burden of interest charges on this line, which, according to the evidence placed before us, could not be expected to become a paying proposition for a considerable number of years.
As I understand it, all that the Schuster Committee was prepared to agree to was certain preliminary expenses in respect of surveys and so on. These two quotations taken together make me fear that, whilst the House is under the impression that the Government has accepted the Schuster Committee Report as the basis on which future work is to take place, there is the possible danger that the matter of importance and priority may at some subsequent date be so adjusted that the whole balance of the scheme will be altered, and the sole point for the consideration of the Treasury will be whether or not the scheme is financially sound. I hope that that will be considered. It is a question of substance and importance, and I shall be grateful if the Secretary for the Colonies will give an answer.

Mr. AMERY: That is a perfectly fair point to raise. It may help the hon. Member if I remind him that the Schuster Committee is not proceeding by way of a single final Report. We had an interim Report in March last, in order to settle the things of immediate urgency. They decided on certain items, and they are actually being carried out. They produced another interim Report, which I thought of such general interest that, contrary to the usual practice, I published it so as to help the House to understand the whole situation. That, again, gave a very general indication of priority, subject always to the necessary surveys, where the surveys have not been made. We are following their sequence in carrying out the surveys, and we are generally following the line that they suggested. When the reports of the experts come back, the Committee will again report to us, and again upon their recommendation we shall be guided as to what is the most profitable and useful line to pursue next. I may correct one small misapprehension in the hon. Member's mind. He suggested that what I said about possible future means of financing the Dodoma-Fife Railway was inconsistent with what was in the Schuster Committee's Report. Paragraph 30 of the Schuster Committee's Report states:
On the completion of the reconnaissance and survey work referred to above, it will be necessary to consider new methods of financing the construction of this line, when,
with more reliable evidence than is at present available as to its cost and prospects, it is to be expected that a better case could be made out for assistance by the Imperial Government than is now possible.
What I said then I repeated only two days ago in a paraphrase of that passage in the Report.

Mr. BAKER: Do I understand that the figures which the right hon. Gentleman quoted in July and the amplification of the words just quoted come out of the further Report of the Schuster Committee? If not, I am sorry that I do not agree that that can be regarded as a paraphrase.

Mr. AMERY: In July I said what I said a few days ago, that this particular line is not one to be justified on financial grounds at the present time. What I said was that the time will come, after immediately paying lines have been initiated, when we can consider whether the necessary cost of that trunk line can be found out of East African revenues, or whether we must come to this House with some special proposals, if at that time it is considered a matter of urgency to carry that line through.

Mr. BAKER: My difficulty is that a definite figure is named, not as regards the future. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the estimated cost, is £2,700,000. I can find those figures nowhere, nor can I find a definite recommendation.

Mr. AMERY: I think the Schuster Committee mentioned figures totalling up to £4,000,000 for that section of the line as well as the section Dodoma-Arusha. You can only arrive at the real cost after a much closer survey. What I said was that I accepted the policy of the Schuster Committee.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Obviously the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) ought to be supporting me on this matter. He is anxious now to find out what the Schuster Committee in future is going to do. Directly we have voted these £10,000,000 the future reports of future Schuster Committees, which will come out every year or every six months, will be undiscussable in this House. We shall have handed over all the £10,000,000 and it will then be outside the power of this House to criticise or to refuse to
sanction. [HON. MEMBERS:"NO I "Yes; once we have voted this £10,000,000 the Secretary of State can spend it as he likes. If we voted only £5,000,000 we should still be able, when the next report comes out, to exercise a salutary check and to see that the money is spent to the greatest advantage of the people of this country. But seeing that in this matter the Labour party has adopted the entirely bureaucratic idea that the more you hand over to the Government to juggle with the better it will be for everybody, I do not feel inclined to dissociate myself from that view under the circumstances, and as thy right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) is against me, I propose to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel BURTON: I beg to move, in page1, line 21, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that no part of the moneys secured by the guarantees mentioned in this Act shall he expended on plant, machinery, or equipment which has not been manufactured in the United Kingdom or the British Empire, except in so far as any part of such sums guaranteed are to he applied to the purchase of already existing plant or machinery specified in the Schedule hereto. Provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in the case of any particular plant, machinery, or equipment in respect of which the Treasury thinks fit for any special reason to direct that they shall not apply, or in the case of any such plant, machinery, or equipment required for mandated territories.
I rather gather that there is a general desire not to kill this Bill but to get it passed, if possible without it having to go to a Report stage, and my hon. Friends and I will not detain the House more than a few moments. I do not offer any apology for bringing forward this Amendment because a few weeks ago we put down a similar Amendment on the Electricity Bill, but unfortunately owing to our extraordinary Parliamentary procedure, which certainly baffled us as it often baffles older hands, we were unable to move that Amendment, and were thereby precluded from affording the Government and a very large number of our own colleagues of reaffirming their faith in the doctrine of the safeguarding of our efficient industries without launching out on the dangerous seas of a general Protective tariff. The other evening the Secretary
of State for the Dominions said that Palestine had now reached a position that it was able to come into the money markets of this country to borrow money. I do not know what chance. Palestine would have of raising a loan in this country if it had not behind it the guarantee of the British Government. On the same evening the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) and the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Greenall) were at great pains to show that we were piling up potential liabilities in regard to guarantees in this country, some of which might accrue and others might not. But we are in such a state that we cannot afford to keep on piling up these liabilities one after the other.
I hope that we are entering on a new era of prosperity. After the unfortunate coal stoppage one thing that we can do to rehabilitate that industry is to develop our iron and steel industries. We are desirous that the money which is to be provided under these guarantees shall be spent in this country and afford work for British labour. In 1925 2,750,000 tons of steel were imported into this country. If that could be manufactured in this country we have it on the authority of the President of the Board of Trade that between 7,000,000 and 10,000.000 tons of coal would be used in the production of the steel. Shipments of pig iron from Middlesbrough which in 1913 were 1,340,000 tons, in 1925 had fallen to 300,000 tons odd. Our exports of steel which in 1913 were within a few thousand tons of 5,000,000 tons, have fallen below 9,000,000 tons in 1925. It has been computed that if that odd million tons of steel had been manufactured in this country and the returns of 1913 had been kept up we should have employed no fewer than 33,000 men in the collieries, iron and steel works, and limestone quarries, and a large number of men in the transport of the 6,000,000 tons of other materials which would have been used in the allied trades. In 1924 10,000,000 tons of coal were used in the production of pig iron and steel in this country. On 7th December the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said:
Very few will deny that in all probability at this moment we are laying down the grounds of a financial programme which may operate on a large scale in the develop-
ment of the British Empire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1926; col. 1995, Vol. 200.]
It is because we believe that we are now laying down a programme which will operate on a large scale that we desire to see the principle established that any money guaranteed by British credit shall be spent in the British Empire in order to employ British labour so that we may more rapidly enter upon that era of prosperity which we believe to lie before us. We have added to the Amendment words providing that it shall not apply
in the case of any such plant machinery or equipment required for mandated territories.
As I understand, under international w, that might not he allowed.

Mr. RADFORD: I beg to support the Amendment. I have felt it my duty from time to time in this House to oppose the giving of these British Government guarantees, but I am happy to say I do not rise in any spirit of opposition to the Government giving this guarantee. But I think it only reasonable and right that the patient British taxpayer, who is undertaking a contingent liability under these guarantees, should at least have assured to him that, so far as our industries can supply at reasonable prices the goods which will be bought by the money to be expended under these guarantees, that money should be expended in Britain and not in foreign countries. There is no question that the purpose of our guarantees is to enable this money to be borrowed more cheaply. It is only a very small thing for which we are asking, namely that subject to certain limitations which the Amendment provides the materials, equipment and plant required should be bought in this country. I invite the attention of the Committee to the words at the end of the original Amendment before the manuscript addition was made to which the Mover referred:
Provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in the case of any particular plant, machinery, or equipment in respect of which the Treasury thinks fit for any special reason to direct that they shall net apply.
These words are similar to words inserted in the Beet Sugar Measure and they were intended to prevent any exploitation on the part of the machinery manufacturers of this country of the fact
that British machinery had to be bought for the beet factories if they were to be eligible for the subsidy. By the insertion of these words my hon. and gallant Friend and I submit that the territories in which we are interested are protected against exploitation. We are desirous that the Government should accept this Amendment and, as proof of our desire, we have made an addition to exclude mandated territories from its application. If we included mandated territories, we understand the Government could not accept the Amendment. We now feel that we can reasonably ask the Government to accept our Amendment. We also feel that we are justified in putting down this Amendment when we look into the figures showing the proportion of imports into these Crown Colonies and mandated territories which are of British origin. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his very interesting speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, said:
I showed also that the prospects of development in these territories were such that the result of the railway and other schemes which the House is asked to sanction will be not merely substantial orders for material from this country, but also a very substantial advance in our general export and import trade."-[OFFICIAL REPORT 7th December. 1926; col. 1988, Vol. 200.]
Unfortunately there is a big discrepancy between that optimistic statement and the figures of the actual imports into these territories during the six months from January to July of this year. These figures show that of the imports into Palestine only 12 per cent were British. In the case of Tanganyika the British imports were 40 per cent., while in the case of Kenya and Uganda the British imports were only 41 per cent. I think those proportions justify us as safeguarders and protectors of the British taxpayer in stipulating that if we give these guarantees we should at least have the very modest benefit asked for in the Amendment. We have been listening all the afternoon to speeches from the Socialist Benches, and hon. Members thereon appear to be greatly exercised in their minds lest under this Bill the natives of Kenya should be compelled to work. My hon. and gallant Friend and I are solicitous that under this Bill some of our fellow countrymen in this country
shall have an opportunity to work. I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. AMERY: With the object of the Amendment I am of course in entire sympathy, and I hope to convince my hon. Friends that we shall also be able to give effect to their purpose. Before doing so, I should, however, point out to the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) that there are two entirely different problems, namely, the carrying out in this country of Government orders and the ordinary import and export trade. It is quite true that we have not got anything like a monopoly of the ordinary import and export trade either of East Africa or Palestine, though the figures mentioned by the hon. Member do not, I think, wholly correspond with the facts. I understand that he referred to figures of imports from Great Britain direct, but these exclude in the case of Palestine a great deal of indirect trade from this country via Egypt, carried over the Egyptian railways, and in the case of East Africa these figures do not include trade with other parts of the British Empire such as India and South Africa. Even so, I think an import of 40 per cent. is two or three times as high as our proportion in the case of most countries under other flags. The point at issue is not, however, general trade but public works, and with regard to that I am quite ready to give my hon. Friends the most explicit assurance that, broadly speaking, with the exception of some particular small item or some unforeseeable circumstances of urgency, the whole orders for the executing of these public works, apart from the work to be done locally, will be placed in this country. That, if I may say so, ensues quite naturally and automatically from the provisions already in force. The orders for these works will be issued through the Crown agents of the Colonies, and these Crown agents are under standing orders not to give any order outside this country, or outside the British Empire, without special reference to the Secretary of State. Therefore, the whole security, which is aimed at in the Amendment, is already assured in our normal procedure, and I am only too ready to give my clear and distinct assurance that the policy aimed at by my hon. Friends is the policy we have in view in the Govern-
ment and in the Colonial Office. It is the policy which we have been carrying out and intend to carry out. As regards the mandated territories, I am not sure that it is desirable to raise that issue, or to go so far in laying down a definite proposition of this kind as the Amendment seeks to do. After all, when we have given export credit facilities or trade facilities to other countries entirely outside the British Empire, we have regarded ourselves as perfectly entitled to expect some return for that special financial assistance in the form of a stipulation of this kind, and I am not prepared to accept the sweeping suggestion that we are precluded from making any stipulation of this kind in a mandated territory by way of return for the guarantee. At any rate, I hope my hon. Friends will realise that all they are aiming at in this Amendment is already covered by the existing procedure, and that the whole purpose of myself and my colleagues will be to see that this policy is effectively enforced.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am delighted to hear what the Secretary of State has said, particularly about the mandated territories, and more especially do I congratulate him on being able to stand firm against this Amendment. It is really remarkable to find a "dyed in the woof "Tariff Reformer standing up against this Amendment, yet there are still in this House a few people who understand that if we lend £10,000,000 abroad that £10,000,000 can only leave this country in British manufactured goods. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or gold!"] As long as economic laws work, let me assure my hon. Friends opposite that if you lend money from this country to a foreign country it goes out sooner or later in goods and, whether you make a stipulation like this or not, does not matter in the least. The sole question we have to consider is: Have we got the best possible investment for the money in the way of the production of goods by the use of that capital?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment. I agree that whilst the right hon. Gentleman himself remains in his present office, we have nothing to fear as regard the treatment of British manufacturers in connection with the supply of plant for public works in the Colonies. But on some future occasion the right
hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) may occupy that office and I wonder exactly where we should be in that eventuality? For that reason, I support the Amendment. We ought to know exactly where we stand. During the election in October, 1924, many people adopted slogans. I adopted a slogan, and it was "British work for British workers." As I happen to be one of those eccentric Members of Parliament who believe in keeping their pledges, I want to vote for this Amendment so that I may carry out the pledge which I gave that, if erected, I should do all in my power to see that work was provided for British workmen. The Amendment is a very reasonable one and the Government ought to accept it, if for no other reason than that we may have the right hon. Gentleman whom I have just mentioned in the office of Colonial Secretary, and we ought to see to it, with certainty, that British manufacturers and workmen get fair play in these matters.

Mr. RADFORD: The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary said he could not accept the sweeping statement which my hon. and gallant Friend and I had made, that we had been compelled to exclude mandated territories in order to give the Government a chance of accepting our Amendment. I may say that we had a fairly high authority for that statement, in fact, the next highest authority to the right hon. Gentleman himself, for we understood from the Under-Secretary of State that such was the position. We would accept the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman unhesitatingly and withdraw the Amendment, but for one thing, and that is that it is possible, though almost inconceivable, that the next. Government may be a Socialist Government, and with such a Member as the right hon. Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) as Colonial Secretary, I fear that he would not feel bound by any pledge of this nature given by the right hon. Gentleman the present Colonial Secretary. We shall be compelled, therefore, to press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: I wish to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for
Sudbury (Colonel Burton), who moved the Amendment, and to the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford), who seconded it, that under their Amendment they would be no better off than they are at the present time in the circumstances described by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Their Amendment allows the Treasury, in express terms, to rule that the restriction to British manufactures
shall not apply in the ease of any particular plant, machinery, or equipment in respect of which the Treasury thinks fit for any special reason to direct that [it] shall not apply.
There is absolutely no protection in that proviso at all, either under a Socialist Government or any other Government After listening to what the Secretary of State has said, I think that what he has outlined as the procedure without the Amendment is yore much better for the purpose which we desire to attain, namely, the winning of orders for this country, than the procedure under the Amendment. He has said that under the existing administrative procedure, no order can be given by the agent of a Crown Colony for any except British goods without the express leave of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I confess that in all these matters, in which I am not without some experience, I value very much more highly the necessity to obtain the express consent of the Secretary of State for the Colonies than the sanction of the Treasury, because, when you are considering the interests of the British Empire, it is better to have as your authority the Secretary of State for the Colonies than the Treasury, which has in the forefront of its mind's eye the question of economy. Therefore, if I have before me the alternative proposal of the Amendment, that the Treasury, with its single interest for economy, shall be the authority to rule where the orders are to go, and, on the other hand, the proposal of the Secretary of State that as it were the champion of the interests of the Empire shall be the authority to decide where the orders are to go, I much prefer the latter; and, with the same object in my mind as have the supporters of the Amendment, I very much prefer the undertaking given by the Secretary of State to the Amendment itself.

Colonel BURTON: After hearing the speech of the Secretary of State, I beg leave, with great respect and regret, to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. HARRIS: I much prefer the attitude of the proposer of the Amendment to the rather Machiavellian point of view of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), who wants to get, by administrative action, what the Movers of the Amendment rightly wish, if it is to be the policy of the Colonial Office, to have done by Act of Parliament. If we are going to exploit mandated territories for our own purposes and make them pay more for their contracts than market price, let us be quite clear about it, and do not let us be insincere and make pretences. After all, the mandated territories are not parts of the British Empire. We hold them in trust, for their benefit, to the League of Nations, and we have to administer them, not in our own interests, but in the interests of the native inhabitants. It is said abroad that we took advantage of the War to enlarge our territory and add to our wealth, but our answer, I hope a right answer, has been that that is not the case, that we do not want to exploit those countries, and that we are merely acting in a disinterested way and administering them for their benefit. If a policy of this kind were accepted, it would be going right against that spirit, and it would be justifying foreign jealousy of, and antipathy to, the British Empire. While I agree that, if we make a loan to these countries, we get benefits, because, somehow or other, every loan must take the form of the export of manufactured goods sooner or later, to make mandated territories pay more than is necessary for goods that they require is not right, and I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division and defeated, so that it will be made clear to the world and to the mandated territories that we have no intention to exploit those territories, but that we will carry out our duties and responsibilities to the League of Nations without any thought of advantage to ourselves.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee proceeded to a Division, but there being no Member Willing to act as Teller for the "AYES" the CHAIRMAN declared that the "NOES had it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end, to insert the words
Provided also that the fair wages clause or principle shall be followed in paying wages for work done in connection with the expenditure of the principal of the loan, and that in particular no wage paid to able-bodied men in Africa shall be less than 16s. a month over and above the cost of maintaining the labourer.
I am glad to think this Amendment will have the unanimous support of the Labour party. No one reading it can fail to see how moderate is the request. Every contract let by Government in this country is subject to a Fair Wages Clause. Might we not ask that similar contracts let for work in the Colonies should also embody that principle? I know that it will seem ridiculous to speak of a wage of 16s. a month, plus keep, but we know that wages are so low, particularly on the East Coast of Africa, that even 16s. will be better than they will get in the majority of cases if no such Clause is embodied in the Bill. I want particularly to draw attention to Palestine, where, if we can get a Fair Wages Clause in this Bill, it will mean that the work done at Haifa will be paid a reasonable European rate of wages, not quite so high as in England, but at least as high as in Italy. There you will yet a white standard of wage, and it will mean in Palestine that the standard of wage paid, not only by public authorities, but by private contractors, will rise, so that the work can be done by white men instead of being done by coloured labour. I move this Amendment because I think it is essential that, if we are throwing the.ægis of our protection over these people when money is lent or credit given to them, it should carry with it a stipulation of a fair rate of wages for the people employed, so that, particularly in Africa, where all his discussion about labour being forced or otherwise has arisen, a minimum wage at any rate shall be paid to the men employed on these works.

Mr. AMERY: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accuse me of want of sympathy with the general principle of a fair wage when I say that this is not
at all a workable Amendment. In Africa it is impossible to arrive at anything approaching a fair standard wage under present conditions, Conditions there vary immensely. You have on the coast at Mombasa a wage three or four times as high as the figure paid inland, and this wage scale is shifting rapidly as each area is being opened up, so that any standard established at this moment might be absolutely unreasonable later on, and it would tend to create a maximum instead of a minimum where naturally otherwise wages would be going up. In isolated regions like Nyasaland, wages are far lower than in other parts of East Africa, but I believe that the development, particularly of transport, will tend to raise and equalise wages all over Africa and improve conditions everywhere.
7.0 p.m.
In regard to Palestine, there again it is very difficult in a country in which there are two elements to lay down proportions. We ought to trust the authorities on the spot who are anxious to see every section of the community getting fair play and certainly are not out to use those projects and developments for the purpose of depressing labour. The inevitable effect will be a large demand for labour generally, and it will help to raise wages. In that matter you can rely on discretion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is exactly what I am afraid of. I am not going to talk about East Africa, because that will come up on the next Amendment. So far as Palestine is concerned, we are afraid that the Government will employ some of the Arabs at a very low rate of wage. We want to be certain that there is a rate of wage paid upon which Jews can live. Hitherto in the Public Works Department on the making of roads it has been almost entirely Arab labour.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): May I point out now that the right hon. Gentleman should wait till the next Amendment on the Paper.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment so that we may have the discussion solely on the East African Amendment if that would suit the convenience of the Committee. I would like, first, from the Government
some assurance that the question of the employment of Jews on the harbour at Haifa will be taken into consideration.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I would like to refer to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. If, as he says, the situation varies in different districts and in some parts there is a higher wage given, then under the Fair Wages Clause that would mean if it were applied, that the higher standard would be the one accepted where at present the pay is so low. Undoubtedly we need to raise the standard in those Colonial parts as well as in our own country to ensure that what is being clone with these workers shall be, as far as we can make it under present conditions, as rapidly as possible to prove the situation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understood the Secretary of State to nod his head with reference to the employment of Jews at Haifa.

Mr. AMERY: That is so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want there to seem to be a misunderstanding.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think it would be much better to have the discussion on the next Amendment, because that is a distinctly East African question. The question which I have raised on this Amendment is that of Palestine, and I have got satisfaction on it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment on that point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only thing I wish to avoid is the same question being discussed twice over.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5. at the end, to insert the words
and such advisory committee shall, in considering any case, have regard to the advisability of imposing conditions to safeguard the interests of the natives and to the necessity for securing fair conditions of labour for those employed on works in connection with the purposes for which the loan is to be raised.
I am glad we have been able to bring the discussion to this point, because I
submit that it puts the matter in a way more possible for the Government to accept than the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). To fix a definite sum of money for a minimum wage is an exceedingly difficult thing when you are dealing with conditions so varied as those which stretch from Palestine all over East Africa, the country with which you are dealing under this loan. I do not myself consider it would he possible to fix a definite money wage as a minimum over a very extensive area. What is asked for by this Amendment is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, a Fair Wages Clause, not only because we desire to safeguard the position of the natives themselves, but also because we feel that unless the conditions of the natives are very carefully safeguarded at this stage of our civilising propaganda, as it were, in East Africa, there will come a period at a not very much later date, when industrialism has gone forward, when the natives of East Africa will be competing in their products with white labour in this country, and when there will he a very serious danger indeed of the deterioration of the standard of life in this country because of the competition of black labour in East Africa and countries dealt with under this loan.
I understand I may be told that under the constitution of this Advisory Committee it will not be possible for the Committee to deal with anything but purely financial consideration. If Members will look on page 3 of the Bill it is stated that money shall not be raised until after consultation with an Advisory Committee appointed by the Secretary of State subject to the approval of the Treasury. I want to point that out because it makes it quite clear that the constitution of the Advisory Committee is not laid down in this Bill. It is an Advisory Committee to be appointed by the Secretary of State, and he can just as well, through the exercise of his function, appoint an expert who shall advise on native labour welfare as appoint another expert who shall advise on the question of finance. I submit that he should do so. The conception of labour being in partnership with capital, which is so much spoken of at the present time, can only become a reality if the interests
of labour are looked after at the same time as those of capital. I submit that on this Advisory Committee there should be a representative who should safeguard the interests of labour—in this case labour largely in East Africa—as well as those who safeguard the interests of capital and of the State. I therefore suggest that the Secretary of State should add a native expert to the Advisory Committee.
We have not only got to consider our own particular Dominions in this respect. I am exceedingly anxious that nothing shall be done to interfere with the passage of this Bill. In East Africa we are not the only Power. There are other Governments there whose native policies will in the future affect us and the condition of whose natives will affect us. Vice versa, the condition of the native population in our territory will have a good deal to do with the native welfare of the whole of that enormous black population. It is of the utmost importance that we should set a very high standard in our own territories in the method of treatment. An expert on native welfare appointed on the Advisory Committee, considering, at the same time as financial questions are considered, labour conditions which should be the other half of the bargain, would be the best possible way to secure that the welfare of the natives from the point of view of their economic security and our economic security would be safeguarded.
We are only at the very beginning of this development. I do not think that we realise sufficiently what a very enormous development is likely to come about in Fast Africa and tropical Africa generally during the next 25 years. It is of the utmost importance that we should lay down a foundation of policy at the present time on which we can build into the future in such a way as not to have disturbances, such as have happened in other countries, occurring in tropical Africa. It is not very long since industrial methods were introduced into China. Because in China you have not had a proper regard for the conditions of labour—you have not a statesman with economic imagination looking into the future—you have a condition of turmoil and trouble there which seems likely to go on for a considerable period
and have effects of a very devastating kind. If, now, from the very beginning on this Advisory Committee, we have a native expert to consider the question of native labour, just exactly, as the question of finance will be considered, then we shall lay down a solid foundation and be able to go on without the risks of trouble and of deterioration of great masses of people in tropical Africa itself and without the risk of the standard of life of white people in this country being affected by competition.

Mr. AMERY: I quite agree that there are risks in the development of Africa which we ought to foresee and avoid. We have already, whether it be perfect or not, the machinery on the spot which is based on local knowledge. We have special Native Affairs Officers. Any construction that is undertaken will be undertaken not only by the engineering constructional staff, thinking only of construction, but it will be under the closest supervision of District Commissioners and Native Affairs Officers who are not native experts in the abstract, but who are native experts in their own particular districts, and who will see that their own people in any district are properly treated. On the other hand, it really does seem very doubtful how a Committee at this end could deal with those quite broad conclusions. You would have to set up a much larger Committee, manned by any number of native experts, and the moment they began to touch on certain points, they would be bound to communicate with the Secretary of State and with the various Governments. I do submit that the existing machinery of local government, under the general control of the Secretary of State, and with the conscience of the House of Commons behind, is, on the whole, likely to produce the best results. I really could not feel justified in diverting myself of my responsibility in this matter, in order that it might be possible to find some native expert, who would really be an intrusive element on the Committee. I say that with every sympathy with the general object the hon. Member has in view.

Mr SAMUEL SAMUEL: I have listened to the speeches on the other side, and I am appalled at the lack of knowledge of the real condition of things in
our colony of East Africa. We have a magnificent organisation. We have a British officer whose special duty it is to watch over and protect the interests of the native labourers. When we require labour in East Africa, it is generally arranged through the officer of labour affairs, who takes the trouble to investigate the conditions under which the employés of any company have to work. He investigates the sanitary arrangements, 'the conditions of the water supply, and so on, and I do say the Colonial Office hay instituted a far better arrangement in British East Africa than has been the case in any colony of any other nation. I can affirm the natives in the majority of cases, owing to the assistance they get in this way, have benefited considerably, and if inquiries were made, instead of statements being made in this House, as to the conditions existing among the native workers, it would, I think, save the House and those who make these statements a great deal of time, and they would be able to give to the Colonial Office the credit which is due to it.

Mr. R. SMITH: The object of this Amendment is not to discredit the very good work that has been done, and is being done, by our administration in East Africa On the contrary, the whole intention of this Amendment is to strengthen and carry forward that work. It is because we want to see that work still further developed that we are bringing this Amendment to the notice of the Committee. The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to the good conditions in East Africa. He knows very well that, for example, the mortality rate is extraordinarily high in that part of Africa. I was reading some statistics the other day which point out that, taking East Africa as a whole, the death rate is So per thousand of the population as compared with 12 to 15 in this country, and whereas the mortality rate 'n children under one year in this country is from, 60 to 100 per thousand, in East Africa it varies from 300 to 600. I have read a very careful analysis taken in East Africa by people on the spot, and they came to the conclusion that, on an average, out of a family of six or seven children, only two ever reached beyond childhood. It is considerations of this
kind, plus the economic factors, that we want to see something like a native code of labour introduced in connection with this loan. We know that the natives, notwithstanding the native welfare department, are not yet able to look after themselves. There is no such thing as a trade union or corporate group life whereby natives can take care of themselves. It is right, therefore, that we should suggest definite State care for these people. For those reasons, I support the Amendment.

Mr. SAMUEL: May I point out to the hon. Member that his reference was to the natives working by themselves, and not to the natives who are employed by the Europeans? If the Government interfered too much with the natives themselves, we should have trouble.

Captain BENN: I think we ought to thank the hon. Member for his valuable, though unfortunately rare, intervention in the Debate. He speaks with great knowledge, but I do not know whether the Secretary of State would he particularly grateful to him for his candour. I understood it was the function of the native Commissioner to protect the interests of the natives, and not to provide labour.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: Both.

Captain BENN: It is no use the Under-Secretary shaking his head. Here is an hon. Member who tells us that it is the native Commissioner to whom he goes, and he is quite satisfied that too much Government interference will not do. I think if ever there were a justification for this Amendment, it is the speech of the hon. Member. If the natives are to be left to the tender mercies of the hon. Member, in view of his conception of what should be done, it is high time that some Amendment should be made to the Bill to protect their interests. It may be quite true, as the Secretary of State says, that the Advisory Committee is not a very good body to do it, but if the Secretary or State regards himself, as I am sure he does, as the guardian and the trustee of the natives, will he not accept some words in the Bill which will show that when Parliament is granting this loan, we do intend in this House—which is far more enlightened than the House of Commons has been in the past in these matters—that certain conditions shall be
imposed which will protect the natives from the sort of exploitation we all desire to avoid?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: In support of the appeal made by the Mover the Amendment, I wish to join in emphasising the necessity of steps being taken of the kind indicated in the Amendment. Reference has been made to China, as 'an illustration of the necessity of handling our Colonial affairs in much better fashion. I regard that as a matter of the utmost importance. It has been suggested by Lord Incheape that the trouble there arises through the introduction of missionaries. My conception of the situation is that the difficulty arises in the application of Christian principles. If the application of those Christian principles were adopted, I quite understand it would be regarded as an impracticable step. We are a professing Christian country, and it is gratifying, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that in this particular connection progress to some extent has been made. But, in view of the announcement made by one of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, that you must be careful not to interfere where private employers are engaged in this exploitation business, we maintain that if a thoroughgoing Government wishes to extend the Empire in the way we would like, as a "land of hope and glory," it should be by a practical application of Christian principles, trying to deal by those people as we would have them deal by us.

Mr. H. YOUNG: It appears to me that if we were to follow the ignis fatuus of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), the discussion would get a little wide of the Amendment. Of course, with the general purpose of the Amendment, I suppose, the whole Committee is in absolute sympathy. Whether or not it would be possible to insert some general words to indicate the principle of protection of native labour, is another question, but the Amendment, it appears to me, would do positive harm for two reasons. It proposes to fix upon the Advisory Committee the duty of attaching conditions with regard to native labour That has two positive vices. The first is that the functions of the Advisory Committee are specific. They are the advisers and
the watchdog of the financial interests of the British taxpayers, and eventually, of course, of the Colony itself. With that function of financial advice, it appears to me improper, and not beneficial, to combine these other functions. The second vice is different. It would clothe the Advisory Committee with administrative functions. Such an Advisory Committee cannot be treated as part of the wheel of government. It is disqualified, first of all, because it is a council, and, secondly, from the fact that it is sitting in London, and not operating on the spot, where these highly specialized matters are considered. It would be doing harm to the natives themselves it we put these matters in the hands of such a body as the Advisory Committee.

Mr. H. GUEST: I do not want to divide the Committee on a point in which there seems to be so much agreement all round, if the right hon. Gentleman will give me some sort of assurance that he will put in words in another place to safeguard the interests of the natives in the sense desired.

Mr. GILLETT: There is one question I would like to ask, and that is whether there is likely to be enough native labour forthcoming without having enforced labour before the railway is proceeded with? One idea we had in our minds was that, before a new scheme is put in hand, there should be some assurance that these questions, which affect a large number of natives, would be definitely considered by some body.

Mr. AMEBY: That, of course, is already the case. The recruiting of the compulsory labour of even the smallest number of men is never undertaken by any Government of East Africa without first obtaining the explicit consent of the Secretary of State, and I hope bon. Members will realise that on all these matters we do exercise a very watchful scrutiny. In substance our point of view is not actually different from theirs, only when one is dealing with local conditions one has to remember that they differ very much from conditions here, and that very often things which appear eminently reasonable here wear a very different aspect out there. Both my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have given the Committee clear assurances as to the
policy of the Government in regard to the natives, and it does seem to me that it is not unreasonable to ask the Committee to recognise the responsibility of Ministers in this matter. If Ministers seem to fail in their responsibility, then they can be called upon to answer either at Question Time or in Debate, but it seems hardly appropriate to include in a Measure based on a Financial Resolution which is narrowly drawn, and is concerned, not with the actual carrying out of the work, but with the giving of a guarantee, language of a general character to tell the Government that they ought to be a good and well-behaved Government. I do assure the hon. Member that the considerations which were in his mind when he brought forward this Amendment and ventilated it are considerations which are in our minds and will be in our minds throughout.

Captain BENN: I would like to ask the Secretary of State what objection there would be to putting in a paragraph (4) in some words as these—
In the case of such loan the Secretary of State shall be satisfied that conditions have been made such as will safeguard the interests of the natives.
I do not ask him to make the conditions. It would be far better and more creditable to the Committee to put in this declaration in defence of native rights. I do not know whether the Whips are afraid of the addition of a Report stage if such an Amendment were accepted, but I do not think that need really distress them, because I dare say assurances might be forthcoming on that point. I do urge the Government to put this declaration in. Nobody mistrusts the right hon. Gentleman—certainly I do not—and I am perfectly certain that both he and the Under-Secretary would be most zealous in looking after the interest of the natives; but is it not better that Parliament should take this opportunity of making a declaration of labour rights for the natives?

Mr. AMERY: It cannot be left out of consideration that to accept this Amendment would involve another stage for the Bill; and further, as I said just now, such an extra clause would only be laying down that the Secretary of State should do what is already part of his ordinary duties. Also, if it were done in this case it would involve doing it in the case of
every other Bill ever introduced. The Committee have done their duty, that is, they have taken the occasion of this financial measure to discuss the general position in East Africa at considerable length in order to get the assurance which they have got from the Government. I think that fully meets the situation and that it is not necessary to add to a financial Resolution what are, from the legislative point of view, purely otiose sentences.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has just said regarding this matter but hon. Members behind me and in other parts of the House attach a good deal of importance to a provision of this kind. We must face the plain facts of the situation regarding the future of this Bill. It. is true that with the few days that remain, if there were a prolonged Report stage, we might not get the legislation through, and we recognise that the Bill must be passed at the earliest possible moment in order that these schemes may proceed; and accordingly my hon. Friends behind me—and I concur in this view—say that if the right hon. Gentleman will try to meet us on this point we will give a firm undertaking, so far as we are concerned, that nothing will be said at all on. Report, so that he would not be exposed to that difficulty. That is the best offer we can make in the circumstances, and having made that offer I feel that the right hon. Gentleman ought to meet us regarding this Amendment.

Mr. AMERY: I do not want to differ from hon. Members opposite on a point of form where there is substantial agreement in substance, and I will try to find some form of words—perhaps in consultation with hon. Members opposite—which perhaps might be introduced into the Bill in another place. On principle, I think it is unnecessary, but I do not want to differ on a point like that, and I will try to see if, on the basis referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, I can find some form of words.

Mr. H. GUEST: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir R. HAMILTON: Before we part with this Clause, I would like to put a question with regard to the financial arrangements during the construction of the line that is being built with the loan raised under the Bill. Will interest be chargeable upon capital during the period of construction?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, that is provided for. The Schuster Committee have agreed that that is a reasonable thing to do—at any rate in certain cases.

Clause 2 (Short title and First Schedule (Purposes of Palestine loan) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Purposes of East African Loans.)

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, in page 4, column 2, to leave out lines 18 and 19.
This Schedule refers to the £10,000,000 guaranteed to British East Africa, and the Committee will observe that this sum is divided into £6,500,000 for the purposes of railways, £2,500,000 for harbours, and £1,000,000 for roads and certain other purposes, including research. These figures for British East Africa follow substantially the allocation made in the Schuster Committee Report, but, as has been pointed out, the Schuster Committee were able to agree only upon certain of these schemes, amounting to about £1,500,000, as settled in the sense that they could be undertaken with safety forthwith, all the rest of the field depended upon a great deal of extra investigation and inquiry, and I think it is beyond all dispute that it is very likely indeed that further inquiry might show that the specific allocations in the Schedule are no longer appropriate. It is perfectly true that the East African Commission, over which the Parliamentary Secretary for the Colonial Office presided, emphasised the importance of railways, and said that a very large amount of money must be expended on them, but it may be that as a result of further inquiry by the Schuster Committee these sums will be no longer appropriate. Some other form of transport may be preferred, although the Government will be committed by this Bill to a specific allocation of £6,500,000 to railways. They might find also that
they required more for harbours than the £2,300,000 which this Schedule specifies. That would be an unhappy state of affairs, because we are not likely to have another Bill for some time, and in schemes of this kind it is desirable to have the greatest fluidity or freedom. Accordingly this Amendment and a consequential one which follows, are designed to make the Schedule mention only the £10,000,000, and to leave it to the Advisory Committee, the Treasury and the Colonial Office to proceed with freedom with the schemes recommended from time to time.

Mr. AMERY: The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is one which was in our minds, of course, in framing the Schedule. Obviously it is impossible to do more than frame a Schedule in general terms—to indicate in broad outlines what is likely to be the need. The Schuster Committee, though it has only sanctioned the construction of one or two items, has indicated what, its conclusions are in the main on the other items; but in order to avoid any difficulty such as the right hon. Gentleman suggested there has been in serted in Sub-section (2, a) of Clause 1 the words
subject in either case to any arrangements which may be made with the assent of the Treasury and the Secretary of State for the application of sayings on one head of expenditure under the said First Schedule or the said Second Schedule, as the case may be, to another head of expenditure there-under:
That does give a very great measure of elasticity and enables us to vary the allocation freely, but we put in a Schedule in order that the House should have a general idea of the extent of the allocation.

Mr. GRAHAM: I had not read the words to which the Colonial Secretary referred as conferring the power he now mentions. In some quarters they were interpreted in a much more limited sense but if the right hon. Gentleman means that in practice they can vary the Schedule effectively I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, after the word "Railways," to insert the words "other than a railway to the Tete coalfield."
My reasons for this Amendment have already been indicated in a speech I made on the Money Resolution which preceded this Bill. The bridge over the Zambesi River will of built in Portuguese territory, the railway will be built in Portuguese territory, the Tete coalfield is in Portuguese territory and, finally, as if these were not enough, the Tete coalfield itself is owned by a Belgian syndicate. The taxpayers of this country are asked to guarantee the loan for that bridge. The reason for building the bridge is to facilitate the development of the coalfield. The Schuster Committee say that this coalfield will have an output of 300,000 tons of coal per annum. This coal is to be sent to a Portuguese port.
It is going to crush whatever British coal we have there out of the market. What wages it is intended to pay in the 'Pete coalfield I have no means of knowing, but I do know that the rate of wages paid in Nyasaland runs from 4s. 6d. to 6s. per month, and I will take the average as 5s. per month. Therefore the British taxpayer is being asked to guarantee a loan to facilitate the development of a coalfield in Portuguese territory, the coal to be sent to a Portuguese port over a Portuguese railway, and the whole business is to be exploited by a Belgian syndicate, and the workers will be paid a wage of about 5s. a month. With 100,000 miners out of employment in this country, and in face of the fact that the Indian coalfield is being exploited to a large extent by Indian capitalists, and to a smaller extent by British capitalists, Lord Inchcape being amongst them, there is not a very bright prospect for these natives.
According to the official figures a coal hewer in India working 48 hours per week, assisted by his wife, receive 8s. 6d. per week between them. This coal arrives at Calcutta and is sold at 11s. per ton, and this is crushing British coal out of the Indian market. Already Indian coal comes as far west as the Suez Canal. I am told by men who were interested in the coalfields that within five years the cheap Indian coal, with which we cannot possibly compete, is likely to capture the Italian, the Greek and other British coal markets. As all that was not enough, the Colonial Secretary now proposes to guarantee a
loan by the British taxpayer to facilitate the building of a railway and a bridge on Portuguese territory, and a railway to develop a coalfield on Portuguese territory owned by a Belgian syndicate who are going to pay their men 5s. a month. But whatever guarantees the Government give they cannot possibly regulate the treatment of labour on Portuguese territory, and for these reasons we are opposed to this Bill going through.
I do not want to stop the building of the Zambesi bridge, because I believe that is necessary and essential for the development of Nyasaland. I believe Nyasaland is the least developed of our Colonies, and as a consequence the wages are lowered and the conditions of work are bad, and I should not like to do anything that would prevent the economic development of Nyasaland. I would like to have an assurance from the Colonial Secretary that before the building of the Zambesi bridge is commenced he will insist upon the condition that no coal shall be allowed to come over that bridge which is produced under sweated conditions. I know the difficulty of doing this, but if it is not done you will have the British taxpayer guaranteeing loans, part of which will be used for producing a commodity which will keep our coal out of -those markets. If the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to my suggestion I hope this Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We have already been told that the only possible outlet for the trade of Southern Nyasaland is by means of the Zambesi bridge. We have also been told that the native population in that country are paid much lower wages than in the adjoining territories, but in our view the whole economic conditions of Nyasaland would change very rapidly if we build this bridge. It is almost unfortunate for this Debate that the Tete coalfield is in the neighbourhood of Nyasaland, but I would like to point out that in this coalfield if they use the river to convey the coal it would draw away a certain number of Nyasaland natives to work there. We have no control over the working conditions or the wages in the Tete coalfield. We do not know much about what is going to be done in regard to develop-
ment of the Tete coalfield, but we do not know of anything which ought to prevent us giving this guarantee for the construction of the Zambesi bridge, We can, however, give the assurance that this guarantee will not be used to construct a single line of further railways in Portuguese territory except in regard to the little bit which connects Nyasaland with the Zambesi Bridge, which is at the bottom of British Nyasaland.
At the point where it is proposed to construct the bridge it may be necessary to divert the railway at the Zambesi end, and that is the only new construction of a railway in Portuguese territory which could conceivably be covered by this guarantee. We have given no undertaking whatever for any construction of the length between the Tete coalfield and our territory. I think the hon. Member will see that our paramount interest consists in providing for these territories free access to the sea, and the providing of adequate means of transport for imports and exports far outweigh the possible danger of the Zambesi bridge proving an obstacle to our coal trade.
The future development of the Tete coalfield we are not in a position to foresee, but if we get the Zambesi bridge built the British Nyasaland natives would find plenty of opportunities to grow tobacco, maize, cotton, and other crops in Nyasaland for export, and then they would not drift away to work elsewhere to the same extent as they are doing now. Undoubtedly with the limited output of the Tete coalfield it would be very difficult for the coal they produce there to be sold in competition with coal sent from this country to the other ports, because most of the coal produced there would be required locally for local purposes. I have now given the hon. Members such information as I possess on this point. I do not know what the actual conditions of the Tete coalfield are but I give the hon. Member an assurance that we are not going to spend any of this guaranteed money in building any railway in Portuguese territory with the exception of the little bit I have mentioned.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I point out to the Under-Secretary that the Schuster Report states that given an outlet to the sea in this district a traffic of 300,000 tons
of coal could be expected in a few years time? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the placing of 300,000 tons of fresh coal on these markets is not going to have a bad effect on the British coal trade?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I know that the Schuster Committee has asked for more information on that point, and the hon. Member should not take that statement as final. It is not my business either to "boost" or depress the Tete coalfield. but I wish to make it clear that none of this money is going to be spent in Portuguese territory to develop the Tete, colliery.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: In regard to the coal situation there is one thing we cannot get away from, and it is that whether you read the Schuster Report or other things that have been written about this question, you have to consider them all in regard to their effect on the British coal industry. The whole prospect is one of future development. For these reasons I am entirely against the building of the Zambesi bridge, and I am against any British money being spent in this connection. There is no use talking about the good of the natives or putting any other phrases upon it. The whole basis of the Report and of this Bill seems to me to be something that has been tried and tried in the dark, but which has not yet got a grip of reality. If you talk of the possibilities of a coalfield it means, if it means anything, that you are to place the British Government, or whatever Government is in charge of that coalfield, in the position that they are going to have a major hand before many years in the traffic over that bridge. Even the Schuster Report points out that the only way of having this bridge made a paying proposition is the possibility of coal going down there. It is quite true that you cannot have any development in this part of Africa without this bridge, and, if we had been fully developed here, our coal, our land and industry, and if we could not employ another man I would be only too willing to help to develop another country, but so long as we are in our present position I will use my voice against this proposal, and I will vote against it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would not have taken part in the Debate but for the fact that the last right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench smiled when my colleague the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) raised a question of the conditions that would hold good in this Tete coalfields. We are all very anxious here to facilitate this Bill. We are very anxious for the development of the British Empire in general. We believe this is a means whereby our people at home can be employed. Coming from an engineering centre as I do, where we have steel-works, I am very anxious to do all I can to get work for that district, and we see the possibility of work in this bridge. But, being a Scotsman, I do not want to buy my toys too dear, and I am afraid that in getting this bridge we may have to pay too terrible a price. We have to look a little into the future to see what is going to happen here. There is no getting away from the fact—the Dominion Secretary himself could not explain it away—that there are 300,000 tons of coal going to be put on the market as early as possible to compete with our own people, who are at the moment placed in a difficulty in reorganising the mines of this country. The outstanding economic factor that determines the conditions which the Government was forced to force upon the miners of this country was that, up to two years ago, this country sent out £5,000,000 of coal to the Eastern seas. Now we do not send a pennyworth. There is a great market cut off, the reason being that the Indian mines supply the Eastern seas with that coal. We used to send it to Singapore, the second greatest coaling station in the world. How is it that India now supplies that coal? Is it because Indian coal is better than ours for steaming purposes? Certainly not; no better steaming coal exists than British coal. Is it because the Indian miner is better than the British miner? No: there is no better miner in the world than the British miner. The reason is the economic factor, the standard of life of the worker in India.
In India you have a miner working in the mines for 8s. 6d a week for both himself and his wife. He is down the mine for 30 hours at a stretch, not seven or eight hours. There is no limitation to his hours per day there is only a
limitation to the hours he may work per week. We know what the ruling class of this country are prepared to do and are capable of doing with our great Empire, using what is commonly called the backward races of our Empire to lower the standard of life of our people at home. We are not to be parties to that. We are anxious for the development of the Empire, because we believe it can be used as the most powerful influence for peace in the world, but this is not the way. When you think that at the moment that coal is being put into dock at Calcutta at 11s. a ton, how are we able to compete against that? My authority is the Chief Inspector of Mines at Bengal, and his official figures for the year 1923. In the coalfields there the Indian minors are working 48 hours for three rupees, two annas, equal to 5s. 2d., and the women working underground have two rupees for 48 hours, equal to 3s. a week, making a total for man and woman of 8s. 2d. Thai is the work of Lord Inchcape, whose name has been thrown across the Floor of this House several times this week in reference to China. Lord Inch-cape is a fellow-countryman of my own and some years ago he was known by the common name of John MacKay. Only two years ago, he wrote in the "Glasgow Herald" about the advis-

ability of us going back to our old Sabbath day. Such hypocrisy never was witnessed in the land before. Now he turns round and says that the reason for the trouble in China is that we are sending out too many Christian missionaries.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this argument as to what Lord Inchcape said or could possibly say on the subject of missionaries in China can have any reference to the Tete railway.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I obey your ruling. I know quite well that you have difficulties, but I can assure you, as a member of the working class, that I have no difficulty in saying that I should have got in here to let the House know what is going on, and to let the country know. This is what I stated in Derbyshire, where I was brought before the authorities in regard to the coalfields in India, but it was pooh poohed. But
Facts are chiels that winna ding,
And daurna he disputed.
I have had my say, Mr. Hope, and I thank you very much.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 193.

Division No. 551.]
AYES.
[8.12 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, Wail)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Paling, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George?.
Potts, John S.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt Hon. Vernon
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, A.
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.


Batty, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Briant, Frank
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Cove, w. G.
Lowth, T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Welsh, J. C.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Westwood, J.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Duncan, C.
Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Windsor, Walter


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James



Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gillett, George M.
Murnln, H.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Charles Edwards.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Goff, Sir Park
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Albery, Irving James
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pennefather, Sir John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perkins. Colonel E. K.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balfour, George (Kampstead)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Radford, E. A.


Barrett, Major Sir Richard
Kail. Capt. W. D A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Raine, W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ramsden, E.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Harmon. Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, J. R.


Berry, Sir George
Harland. A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hartington, Marquess of
Rice, Sir Frederick


Blundell. F. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ropner, Major L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemeuth)


Braithwalte. A. N.
Head lam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rye, F. G.


Brass. Captain W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandon, Lord


Buckingham. Sir H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'f, Exchange)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hills, Major John Waller
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Burman, J. B.
Kore-Belisha, Leslie
Shepperson, E. W.


Burton. Colonel H. W.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Campbell. E. T.
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Carver, W. H.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cazalet. Captain Victor A.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Iliffe. Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chapman, Sir S.
Jacob, A. E.
Storry-Deans, R.


Charteris. Brigadier-General J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones. G- W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Clayton, G. C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
King. Captain Henry Douglas
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Knox. Sir Alfred
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lister. Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement


Cunon. Captain Viscount
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Waddlngton, R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loder, J. de V.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davidson. J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lord, Walter Greaves
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston on-Hull)


Davies, Dr. Vernon,
Lougher. L.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Luce. Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Dixey, A. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Drewe. C.
MacIntyre, Ian
Watts. Dr. T.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Elliot. Major Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
White, Lieut. Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Erskine. Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Willian's. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Everard. W. Lindsay
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Merriman, F. B.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Meyer. Sir Frank
Withers, John James


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Womersley, W. J.


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morris, R. H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)



Galbraith, J. F. W.
Murchison, C. K
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ganzoni Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Major Cope and Captain Mar


Gibbs. Col. Kt. Hon. George Abraham
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
gesson.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh



Question put, and agreed to.

Sir F. WISE: I beg to move, in page 4. line 18, after the word "Railways," to insert the words" other than the Kenya Uganda Railway."
I think that, if I had had any reply when I spoke on this question during the Debate on the Financial Resolution, I should not have tabled this Amendment, but I find that it is rather difficult for a back-bencher to receive replies when he
discusses finance. I have been anxious that this railway should develop, but I am also anxious that it should be a wise development, and that the credit of this country should be protected. Early this year I asked the Colonial Secretary a question as to the profits of this railway, and was informed in reply that the net earnings in 1923 were £415,000, in 1924, 2756,000; and in 1925, £778,000;
and the Colonial Secretary stated in his speech the other day that the surplus in 1925 was £903,000. I am most anxious to protect the credit of this country, and this again is giving away the credit of this country quite unnecessarily; it is the taxpayers' guarantee, and, unless we in this House protect the taxpayers' guarantee and the taxpayers' credit, one cannot say what may happen to this country as regards finance. One must also remember that this railway received £3,500,000 in 1924, free of interest for five years. That is equal to a gift of nearly £1,000,000. I contend that to give capital without any interest is not business, and is not to the benefit of the taxpayers of this country or of the credit of this country. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn), who is, I think, now on his way back from Australia, and who knows the country quite well, said in a speech in July:
What need is there to give a Government guarantee in the case of a railway which is paying its way?
That practically puts my point into a nutshell, and I sincerely hope that the Colonial Secretary will consider this matter from a, business point of view, and from the point of view of protecting the credit of the country.

Mr. AMERY: The considerations which prompted my hon. Friend to move this Amendment were naturally present to my own mind, and were carefully examined from the business point of view by the Schuster Committee. The surplus of the Kenya-Uganda Railway is to be applied to the renewal and betterment of the line, but what they need in the first instance is a very large-scale re-equipment, including re-grading, to deal with the bottle-neck single line which intervenes between the growing development of Uganda and the coast, and, after considering this matter, the Schuster Committee did suggest that £400,000 towards this re-equipment might come from the Renewal and Betterment Fund, and might be withdrawn from other purposes of renewal and betterment for which it would have been used. Whether that view will be finally endorsed by them after further consideration in the light of the views of the Kenya railway authorities, I do not know, but in any case the Schuster Committee started from
the same point of view as my hon. Friend, and they did consider that the sum of £1,400,000 should be allocated to this railway. This railway is not a single unit; it is part of a system going right through the most fertile part of Africa—right across Uganda to the Nile—and new capital is needed all the time. It would be quite impossible, out of the Renewal and Betterment Fund, to carry out the present extension which is being built, and still less to carry out a further extension right across Uganda, which is one of the things which we regard as most hopeful, and which is so regarded by the Schuster Committee.

Sir F. WISE: What do other railways do?

Mr. AMERY: There is a great difference between the conditions of railways in a densely populated country like this and in a new country which we all agree it is to our interest to develop. Really, I have very little patience with the attitude of my hon. Friend on the question of the credit of this country. The credit of this country depends on its trade and production, and the measures we are taking in giving such slight contingent support as our guarantee gives will undoubtedly strengthen the trade and production of this country, and in that way will strengthen instead of weakening our financial position. In any case, these extensions are mostly in Uganda, and very little will be asked of the Kenya Government. Therefore, I could not possibly accept this Amendment, which would mean taking out of the scheme some of its fruitful and valuable items

Amendment negatived.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, to leave out the words "including the raising of the loans."
This is a purely technical Amendment to enable me to implement a promise I gave a few minutes ago. I undertook, at the desire of the other side of the House, that certain words covering conditions of labour in the construction of public works should be inserted in another place, forgetting at the moment that this, being a money Bill, is not susceptible of Amendment in another place. I therefore move these words to enable the matter to come
up on Report, so that I can then introduce an Amendment which will meet the view of hon. Members opposite.

Captain BENN: I think the Committee is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, apart from the merits of the Amendment, for observing the procedure, because there is a certain objection taken to this argument that we shall avoid this or that stage of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Schedule, as amended, he the Second Schedule of the Bill "

Mr. R. SMITH: I wish to draw attention to paragraph 3 dealing with research. We have had a good deal of discussion on this subject, but I should like to have some further assurance as to what is the intention in this direction. In former remarks on this subject I drew attention to this innovation and I think the whole House is very glad to see that for the first time in a Bill of this character money for research has been definitely allocated. I am sorry to see such an important and welcome departure as that inserted in a parenthesis. I think it deserves separate and distinct mention. I want, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us any idea as to the proportion to be spent on work of that character, as compared with the general kind of work for railways and harbours. In particular I should like to know which of those schemes which have been already indicated in the Schuster Report are definitely under consideration and whether £39,000 is the figure he has in his mind, or some higher figure. It would be a great help to those who are working in this direction if a definite undertaking could be given.
I do not know whether he would require some figure to he suggested. I should be prepared to suggest that 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. of the total loan might be definitely allocated in advance for research and educational purposes. I need not remind him how great the need is from a purely commercial point of view, from the point of view of developing the undertaking, that there should be generous spending on the side of education and research. Indeed, the more one considers the backward state of the natives from a purely industrial point of view, in respect of their lack
of education, diseases and other disabilities from which they suffer, the greater becomes the claim upon the House to make a progressively larger grant in recognising this principle of a loan being made for research purposes. I have referred to Kenya, where only one out of every 174 children of 'School age is getting any kind of Schooling. If you take Uganda, where there are something like 640,000 children of School age, there are, according to the 1922 Report, only 157,000—less than a quarter—getting any kind of Schooling, and of these practically 140,000 are going to little schools where the kind of education given is of an exceedingly poor quality. Uganda, above all the other East African States, compares most favourably in respect of its remarkable economic development in the course of the last few years. Even there, where there is money available wholly for educational purposes, it was possible for the Phelps-Stokes Commission to report:
With all the wealth of agricultural resources in the Protectorate, there is not a single agricultural School to prepare the natives to take advantage of their wealth. The few institutions that give any attention whatever to the subject are negligible. The teaching of hygiene is poor and limited. Nature study and physical science are almost entirely neglected.
If you take Tanganyika, in which, being a mandated territory, we ought to be more than ordinarily sensitive about the educational claims made for the natives, where there are something like 800,000 children of School age, the whole of the Government provision at the time they reported was limited to something like 3,000 native boys and girls. The same Report points out that education for girls and women has hardly yet begun, that in three out of the five districts to which it is proposed to apply these loans it is very generally admitted that so far as the education of the natives is concerned very little has been done, that the major portion of the work has yet to he undertaken, and the chief reason why schools are not built and the capital outlay is not made for this fundamental enterprise, even from a, commercial point of view, is that they have not got the money to do it. When we pass away from the rudimentary beginnings of education and come to deal with what in this country is called higher education, the Report is even worse, if anything.
I gather from the Phelps-Stokes Report that there is hardly anything in the nature of a college south of the Sahara until one gets into South Africa. So far as the education of the natives is concerned, you cannot even speak of the beginnings of what we describe as secondary education in the area we have been discussing in the past week or two. Over and above all that, the question of research into tropical diseases and the health and welfare of the natives, the question of matters affecting the best way of producing cotton and coffee, and how the natives themselves can be gathered into collective enterprises of that kind, all that kind of work is really in the first stages of its development. Therefore I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman before we allow the Bill to pass from the Committee stage whether he will not say definitely, agreeing as we all do that it is greatly to his credit that he has introduced this principle of granting loans for purely research work, that he intends a very considerable portion of the money purely for commercial reasons as well as from the broader humanitarian point of view, to be spent for this purpose, and if he would say how much, the Committee will receive the information with appreciation and enthusiasm.

Mr. AMERY: I certainly can give the hon. Member the assurance that here ht this end we are genuinely anxious that the item of research out of this loan should be a really substantial one. I quite agree that NI e ought not to read the word "research" in a narrow sense. We certainly contemplate encouraging the Governments out there to develop research on a far larger scale than has ever been thought possible hitherto. There is the agricultural research institution at Amami, a veterinary research station, a medical research station, and a special inquiry into the tsetse fly. These matters play a very great part in the health question there. I also mentioned a little earlier that we have under consideration proposals from the Governor of Kenya on a very considerable scale, amounting to something like £100,000, for research, which deal not merely with medical and scientific research, but human research, such as investigation into the needs, the social habits, and the needs of the natives educationally, very much on the lines of
investigation which the hon. Member would welcome. We ought to encourage the Government to enter into further negotiations with each other.
Although it is impossible at this stage to give a definite figure, I can give the hon. Member this assurance that the figure, whatever it may be, will be much nearer £200,000 than the. £39,000 origiNally mentioned in the Schuster Committee's Report. On the subject of the educational system in tropical Africa, it, was because we realised its deficiency that, we sent out the Phelps Stokes Commission three years ago. We have done a good deal since then to improve things, and we certainly mean to go on in the same way.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to he considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) BELL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1 (Prohibition of giving of short weight, measure or number), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Statements as to weight or measure on pre-packed articles.)

The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper in the name ofSIR HARRY FOSTER:
In page 1, line 12, leave out the word "net"; after the word "thereof" insert the words "including the weight of the paper or other receptacle in which such article is contained.

Sir H. FOSTER: When I put down these Amendments, I had not had an opportunity of seeing the Amendment to Clause 4 standing in the name of the President of the Board of Trade. While we all regret very much—and I imagine the President of the Board of Trade regrets it as much as any of us—the pressure under which we are obliged to. consider this Bill, I desire to acknowledge, as one who has put down many Amendments, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the Amendments, and met the circumstances. I desire to thank him for the consideration
which he has given to those of us who have had to criticise the Bill. I do not propose to move my Amendments to this Clause.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Misrepresentations.)

Sir H. FOSTER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after the second "any," to insert the word "wilful."
I am associated with other hon. Members in this and other Amendments. I feel bound to move this Amendment because I have undertaken to do so. But I wish to point out two circumstances which I hope the Committee will consider. First of all, in the Report of the Fond Council, in paragraph 5, they say:
Witnesses representing local authorities and Inspectors of Weights and Measures have explained that prosecutions under Section 26 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, can only be successful in cases where an inspector actually sees the weighing or measuring operation, and can prove that fraud in the using of the weighing or measuring instrument is wilfully committed. As wilful fraud is very difficult to prove, the public obtains little protection from this Section of the Act even in cases where goods are weighed or measured in the presence of the purchaser.
They point out, further, in paragraph 44 of their Report:
We have already referred (paragraph 5) to the difficulties which local authorities have experienced in proving that an offence is 'wilfully' committed. It shank not be possible, as has proved to be the case in connection with the administration of Section 60 of the Glasgow Corporation Act, for a person charged with an offence under the proposed Act to escape conviction by pleading negligence. Such a word as 'knowingly' or any equivalent has, we are informed, been generally eliminated from legislation elsewhere, as so many cases, in which it was apparent that fraud had been committed, failed on account of the virtual impossibility of proving the state of mind of the man committing the offence, and it is added that experience has shown the justice of this omission.
It is also fair to state that in Clause 13 there is expressed provision made in Sub-section (2):
In any proceedings under this Act in respect of an alleged deficiency of weight or measure or number, if the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the Court that such deficiency was due to a bona fide mistake or accident in spite of all reasonable precautions being taken and all due diligence
exercised by the said defendant to prevent the occurrence of such deficiency, or was due to the action of some person over whom the defendant had no control, the defendant shall be discharged from the prosecution.
What I and other hon. Members had in mind was that because of a mistake a man should not suffer conviction. That seems to be met by Clause 13 (2). I observe that there are other Amendments on the Paper designed to strengthen the position of the defendant, if that be necessary.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The hon. Member has explained very fully to the Committee the reasons why he has moved the Amendment, but he has equally frankly told the Committee what has been the experience in the past where these words existed. Therefore, he has given the answer to his own Amendment, and I hope he will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose to move the next Amendment standing in his name?

Sir H. FOSTER: No.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions applicable to the sale of certain, articles of common consumption.)

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert the words
except that, in the ease of articles specified in Part II and Part III of that Schedule, where the article is weighed for sale in wrapper or container the weight purported to be sold may include the weight of the wrapper or container if the weight of the wrapper or container does not exceed—

(a) in the case of an article specified in Part II of the Schedule two and a-half drams; and
(b) in the case of an article specified in Part III of the Schedule for a parcel not exceeding three pounds in weight four and a-half drams, for a parcel exceeding three pounds but not exceeding seven pounds in weight, three and a half drams, and for a parcel exceeding seven pounds in weight three drams per pound of the article sold."
On the Second Reading of the Bill I promised to insert an Amendment allow-
ing a proportion of paper in cases specified in the Schedule, as amended. The Amendment which follows mine, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes)—in line 8 of my proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "four and a-half" and insert instead thereof the words
for a parcel exceeding two pounds but not exceeding three pounds three and a-half drams, for a parcel exceeding three pounds but not exceeding seven pounds three drams, and for a parcel exceeding seven pounds two and a half—
contains a suggestion for which I think there is some reason, that while it is right to allow a fixed amount, say, for a 2 1b. bag, the weight of the paper which is necessary does not increase arithmetically as you go up.
On an 8 1b. bag it does not happen that there is four times as much paper as on a 2 lb. bag. I have been carefully into this question. There is some substance in the proposal of the hon. Member for East Ham South, and I am moving my Amendment in an altered form because I think it will meet his point. I do not say it is absolutely scientifically correct, but it meets the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member in his Amendment in what, I think, is a reasonable and workable way. I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. BARNES: I am glad the President of the Board of Trade has been able to meet the principle of the Amendment I put down, but in order to avoid any misunderstanding it is necessary that I should state clearly our view towards the Amendment as amended. We regret that the President has been compelled to depart from the principle of net weight, but we welcome this Bill as a considerable advance on the present system. As we are favourable to the passage of this Bill we are sorry that it has been introduced so late in the Session as to curtail our opportunity of expressing our views upon it. In the case of a good many of these articles it is not necessary to eliminate net weight at all. Let me explain exactly what I mean. I have here some samples of sugar, and the weight of paper which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to allow means that on every pound of sugar the consumer loses that quantity. One or two pieces of sugar do not appear to be very much, but on the total amount of sugar sold in this country the consumers
are defrauded of about 500,000 1b. to 750,000 1b., so that we can really see what it means on the total amount of sugar produced.
The Amendment in its modified form allows the heaviest paper now current in use in the trade, and, in fact, it destroys the utility of this Bill on all the items of food in which this paper is to be used. Take, for instance, articles of 6 1bs. weight. Under the original Clause the allowance of 27 drams was given. Under the Amendment the allowance is 21 drams, whereas the heaviest paper now in use in wrapping these commodities only amounts to 18 drams, and the general paper in use in wrapping these commodities only amounts to 10 drams. Therefore the President's allowance is double the commonly used paper and three times in excess of the heaviest kind of paper used. If you take articles of 8 1bs. in weight, the President's allowance is 24 drams, equal to the heaviest paper in existence and double the weight of the lightest or commonest paper. In the case of articles of 10 lbs. in weight the President's allowance is 30 drams as against 25 representing the heaviest paper. However, it is not our desire to hold up this Bill at all, but I think I have given sufficient information to show the Committee that this allowance is too generous. It undermines the principle of the Bill considerably, and when the Bill is passed the consumers will still be defrauded of a considerable quantity of the commodity they are entitled to receive when buying. In the circumstances, having made our position quite clear, I am prepared to accept the Amendment, and I do not propose to move my own.

Mr. G. HURST: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 6, to leave out the words "two and a-half," and to insert instead thereof the words "three and a-quarter." This Amendment will increase the allowance in paragraph (a) from drams to 3¼ drams; and the reason for it is this. It is the view of the whole body of grocers in the Manchester and Salford area that the allowance of 2½ drams is really inadequate. It is their present practice in packing 1–lb. packages, say, of suet, lard and margarine, to use paper which is 3¼ drams to the 1b. piece. This is a very familiar paper which everybody knows.
Paper of 2½ drains to the lb. piece Is much thinner, and the commodities are liable to stick to it, particularly in hot weather, and it is not so convenient as the heavier paper. The 3¼ drams is really a negligible weight in comparison with the lb. weight of the article. In this area they never use the lighter paper, and, moreover, as long as this concession is made under paragraph (b) I do not see why a corresponding concession should not be made in paragraph (a).

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press his Amendment. The hon. Member opposite says that I have done too much while the hon. and learned Member says that I have not done enough. Perhaps between the two I am taking the best course. What I am proposing was recommended by the Scottish Federation of Grocers. It was specifically put to them whether it was a reasonable proposal, and they are satisfied. We cannot all agree as to what is scientifically correct, but I think I have taken the wise course.

Mr. HALL CALNE: As I have some knowledge of the question at issue the House might like to know that on this matter those of us who are interested both in the consumer and in seeing that the article is properly packed, feel that the Government have met the situation very fairly. They have not gone as far as we would wish them to go. We have been compelled to reduce the weight of paper very considerably. Quite contrary to what the hon. Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes) has said, the weights of paper are not going to be more, but very much lower weight of paper will be used. The hon. Member for South East Ham produced a bottle in which he showed the amount of sugar that would be lost to the consumer. That actually represents one fifty-seventh of a penny per 1b. The firm that put these packets forward, I think he will agree, charge more than do the famous co-operative stores for a lb. of sugar. We who are familiar with this matter certainly accept the Government proposals as absolutely fair and just.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Although trade customs differ, no doubt in various cities, it seems to me that the Amend-
ment now before the Committee goes too far. The only fault which I have to find with the Amendment of the Government is this: 2½ drams of paper is quite sufficient to wrap 11b. of butter or margarine, but¼ of 2¼ drams of paper is not sufficient to wrap ¼ 1b. of butter. It is the converse of the case instanced by the hon. Member for South East Ham, and I feel that if the President of the Board of Trade could see his way to allow a little greater latitude with regard to these small amounts it would go far to remedy what most traders consider a genuine grievance. I have been asked to do my best to see whether I could obtain a rather more generous allowance for the smaller amounts. It has always been understood that the fact that the paper was included in the weight should be disclosed to the customer.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 2, to kayo out lines 4 to 9, inclusive.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move in page 2, to leave out from the first word "ounces," in line 14, to the second Word "and" in line 18, and to insert instead thereof the words
or in multiples of two ounces up to a limit of eight ounces, in multiples of a quarter of a pound up to a limit of two pounds, in multiples of half a pound up to a limit of four pounds, or in multiples of one pound."—[Sir P. Ounliffe-Lister.]
This carries out an undertaking which I gave on Second Reading, that there should be increased variety of the multiples of 2 ounces.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the word "the," in line 21, to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words
minimum net weight of the article contained therein, or, any case where the weight of the wrapper or container is permitted by the preceding Sub-section to be included in the weight purported to be sold, of the minimum weight of the article with its wrapper or container.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed
Amendment, in line 5, at the end, to insert the words
such statement to set forth that 'the weight includes the wrapper.
I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Leslie Scott), in whose name it appears on the Paper. The purpose of the proposal is self-evident. Unless it is adopted it is not clear that the statement required will be set forth as a matter of course.

9.0 P.M.

Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER: I have considered the suggestion, and I am advised that it is quite unnecessary, because already Clause 2 covers the whole position. If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 2 he will see that a statement as to the weight or measure of a pre-packed article of food shall be deemed to be a statement as to the net weight or measure thereof unless otherwise specified.

Sir D. NEWTON: We want it to be absolutely clear and plain.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does this mean that, in future, there will be no doubt about the net weight, that no housewife need have any doubt about it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Clause 2 is absolutely general in its terms. Anyone who puts a statement upon a pre-packed article has to make it a statement of the net weight.

Sir D. NEWTON: That is not quite the same as stating definitely that the weight includes the wrapper, which is a definite consideration in the minds of many housewives.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 31, at the end, insert the words
(3) Any such statement as aforesaid shall not be deemed to be untrue if it is shown that it was true at the time of packing or of importation, whichever was the later, and the original wrapper or container has remained intact.

In line 32 leave out the words "by retail."

In line 41 leave out the word "net."

In line 44, leave out the words "the net weight thereof" and insert instead thereof the words "a statement of weight."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out the word "export," and to insert instead thereof the words "shipment to a place outside Great Britain."
This Amendment is intended to apply to the case of goods sent to Northern Ireland. In that connection the word "export" is of course wrong and the right words are, I submit, those in the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions applicable to the sale of butchers' meat.)

Amendments made: In page 3, line 4, leave out the words "by retail."

In page 3, line 7, leave out the word "retail."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after the word "weight" to insert the words "on which the purchase price is based."
This Amendment, together with some others which follow on the Paper are intended to deal with the problem of evaporation. It often happens that there is a period between the ordering of meat and its delivery during which the weight varies, and the object of this and the other Amendments is to meet that case.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I believe these words are quite unnecessary, but if the hon. Member desires to have them in, I do not think that there is any objection.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would like to see the words inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to add the words
Provided that where at the request of the purchaser the meat is boned, trimmed, or subjected to any other process involving loss of weight before delivery; and the bones or other material thus removed are not delivered with the meat, such statement as aforesaid shall include a statement of the net weight of the meat (after such boning, trimming, or other process), as well as the net weight on which the purchase price is based.
I gave an undertaking on Second Reading that I would put down an Amendment to deal with cases of boned meat. The Amendment provides that the butcher should state two weights, namely, the weight of the meat unboned and the weight of the meat as boned. That is what my Amendment does. I was also asked whether I was prepared to deal similarly with meat bought, but retained for subsequent delivery. The House agreed that this was quite a reasonable proposition, and I am therefore prepared to accept the Amendment to my Amendment which stands on the Paper, the effect of which will be to treat meat which is held for later delivery at the request of the purchaser in exactly the same way as it is proposed to treat the boned meat.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "meat," to insert the words
or where at the request of the purchaser delivery of the meat is deferred.
This Amendment will largely meet the point which we have in view, though I see certain difficulties in the method adopted by the President of the Board of Trade of having two different weights in respect of the same article.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as a further Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the words "(after such boning, trimming or other process)," and to insert instead thereof the words "as sent out for delivery."
This makes the provision rather more definite, and brings the matter under control.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
Further Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."

Mr. MARCH: I am not quite clear as to what we are doing in connection with
this matter. It seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade has tried to do something to meet the requirements of the general public. But these variations show that the public are not going to get all that they expected from the Bill. I take it we are here dealing with a case wherein a request has been made by the purchaser to have meat boned and trimmed, but it is not stated whether or not the butcher is compelled to send the bone or bones and the trimmings, if any, along with the joint. [Laughter.] I can understand hon. Gentlemen opposite laughing. They do not require the bones, but unfortunately people in the district which I represent often have to purchase bones from the butcher in order to stew them down to provide a meal for a family when they are unable to purchase meat. If hon. Members opposite had their way these people would never have the money to purchase meat. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The wages which you pay are not enough to buy meat.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is beside the point.

Mr. MARCH: Perhaps some of the people who were so anxious to laugh will not laugh so freely when they understand the position. They do not understand the economic circumstances of these working people. It is often useful for the purchaser of a joint to have the bone taken out and, usually, the butcher takes care of the bones and the trimmings in his own shop and they are sold again to other people who cannot afford to buy meat. Should there not be something in this Bill to compel the butcher to send the bones along with the meat which the customer has purchased?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is entirely a question of contract. If the contract is that the meat is to be boned and the bones and trimmings sent along with the meat, then the butcher is under a legal liability to carry out that contract, but that is not the kind of thing with which this Bill deals. What it does do is to insist that the purchaser shall know he is getting the genuine weight and therefore it is provided that the butcher should provide a statement first of the weight of the meat before boning and secondly, of the weight after it has been boned.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions applicable to the sale of bread.)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920 (REGULATIONS).

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 2nd day of December, 1926, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the Act.
In rising to move this Resolution, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), I feel sure that all the House will agree with me in expressing regret at the cause which prevents him from being present. He has now, on eight successive occasions, had to move in this House the adoption of a series of Regulations made by virtue of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, setting up a Code of Rules which had been enacted by his Majesty by Order in Council, and I am quite sure that it would have been very grateful to my right hon. Friend had he been permitted to move on this occasion the adoption, not of some 39 Regulations designed to ensure the safey of the general population and preserve the essentials of light, fuel, and food for the community at large, but only of four Regulations designed to relax to a very large extent, and, indeed, to repeal in the main, the Regulations which he had previously thought it his duty to submit to this House for approval. The House will remember that the Code of Emergency Regulations, some 39 in number, contained a variety of provisions which were thought necessary in the time of emergency through which we have been lately passing, and it will be in the recollection of many hon. Members
that on the last occasion when my right hon. Friend moved the adoption of the Regulations, on the 26th November, he told the House:
If in a few days' time I can satisfy myself that the condition of affairs is such that I can safely waive all or any of the Regulations, it will be a very great pleasure indeed to me to ask the Privy Council to make the necessary Order, and to bring it before the House for immediate sanction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1926; col. 716, Vol. 200.]
That Resolution was moved on 26th November and adopted by the House on the 29th, the following Monday. On Thursday, the 2nd December, only three days after the House had adopted these Regulations, my right hon. Friend was able to advise His Majesty that the state of affairs was such that it was safe and proper to repeal the great bulk of the Regulations which the House had then been asked to approve. Indeed, practically all the Regulations which deal with the preservation of safety and good order, or what are called, in other connections, peace, order, and good government, it has been found possible to repeal altogether, and the Regulations of which I am asking the House to approve now are only four in number, of which the fourth is merely a definition Regulation. Regulation number 1 revokes the great bulk of the Regulations then in force; Regulation number 2 is really the re-enactment in a modified and less stringent form of an existing Regulation; and Regulation number 3 is again a re-enactment in a modified form of an existing Regulation. Probably the shortest way, if you, Mr. Speaker, do not regard it as transgressing the limits of order, of explaining what these Regulations effect is to tell the House what is left of them rather than what has been removed.
Under Regulation No. 1, the first nine Regulations are completely wiped out. Regulation 10 reappears in a modified form in the second of these revised Regulations. Regulations 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 remain operative, as do Regulations 28 to 32 and Regulations 34 to 39. The effect of this repeal is to leave standing only Regulations 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, which are required in order to control the export of coal and the supply of gas, water and electricity, pending the return to normal working in the coalfields. Regulation 10, in its modified form, which
will be found printed on the White Paper, provides that
The Board of Trade, or other Government Department approved by His Majesty for the purpose, may by order issue any directions which may be necessary for regulating the traffic in any port or harbour.
Under the Regulation as it stood originally, there was power for the Board of Trade to close a. port or harbour altogether or restrict its use. This is a. milder form of restriction. No. 10 and No. 11 deal with port facilities and shipping; No. 12 deals with the clearance and unloading of ships; No. 13 enables the Board of Trade to prohibit export without a permit; No. 14 enables the Mines Department to direct the supply and distribution of coal, and No. 15 empowers the appropriate Government Department to give directions to gas, electricity and water undertakings. These, the House will observe, are none of them regulations which deal with public safety. They are regulations which, in the opinion of the Government, it is necessary to maintain for some short period still in order to make sure that as the unhappy crisis through which we have been passing and its effects are gradually merging into normal working that there shall not be, owing to the export of coal, any lack to domestic or industrial consumers of a supply of coal, and to ensure that the public utility services shall operate in such a way as is most expedient in the national interest.
It is not expected that any very large use will be claimed of the powers which are retained. Already, I believe, permits are being given freely for the export of all coal except anthracite, and the embargo upon coke is kept for the present until the position has regularised itself. I should say a word about No. 3. Nos. 28 to 32 and No. 34 to the end are merely Regulations giving powers to enforce the earlier ones. Regulation No. 3 is a very much modified form of the old No. 19, and it is necessary because during the stoppage directions had been given for ensuring that explosives used in mines should all be kept in places where they could not be used for improper or dangerous purposes. It is necessary to keep No. 19 in force to some extent so far as mines explosives are concerned until those explosives have gone back to their
ordinary use. Those are the whole of the operative Regulations which are kept. I do not want to take up the time of the House discussing the policy revealed in this repeal, because I am sure it would be the wish in all quarters of the House that as far as possible these Regulations should be relaxed at the earliest possible moment. I hope I shall command the assent of the great body of Members when I move, as I do, that these Regulations, which were made by Order in Council on the 2nd of December and laid on the Table of this House on the following day, should continue in force, which enables them to maintain their validity over a period of 28 days.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: We on this side of the House associate ourselves entirely with the very fitting reference of the Attorney-General to the absence of the Home Secretary. Whatever our political opinions may be, we all deplore the circumstances of his breakdown and wish him a speedy recovery. Incidentally, I would say that the Government have shown themselves very wise, for whatever they may suffer for his absence they can at least rely on the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has taken his place seeing that the Government's case does not suffer. Having said that, I want to submit that the Motion moved so clearly by my right hon. and learned Friend is the most innocent and the most welcome Motion ever proposed from that side of the House. It is the most innocent because a Motion to which even we on this side find no objection must indeed be an innocent one. It is welcomed because of the circumstances that enable it to be moved. Whatever views there may be on the merits of the late dispute, every Member, on whatever side of the House he sits, will admit, having regard to all the circumstances, to the length and nature of the dispute, to the number of people involved, that it stands to the everlasting credit of this country that there were so few disorders in the country. Indeed, when one speaks to foreigners, representative men of other countries, it is not only a source of admiration but of envy when they realise what the industrial situation in this country has been for the past seven months and find how little disorder actually took place. That clearly demon-
strates that our people are not only sensible but are essentially law-abiding.
In paying that tribute, I appeal to the Government to add something to their Motion. I do not want it put down on the Paper; I do not want it to be in the form of an Amendment, but I want it given expression to in the spirit in which I am going to make an appeal. The right hon. Gentleman has explained to the House the number of Regulations that are now being abandoned. I stand here and say deliberately I want peace in industry. I am not ashamed to say that. I believe it is the right thing, and I believe it is necessary, but I believe it can be obtained only in two ways. It can be obtained by employers doing the right thing, and it can be obtained and helped on by the Government doing not only the right thing but the big thing. That brings me to the number of people who are at this moment suffering in consequence of the Regulations that are now being abolished. I quite realise that it would be out of order to deal with individual cases. That I do not propose to do. I am going to ask the Government if they themselves can feel satisfied with their own actions in this matter? Yesterday my right hon. Friend in a question directed to the Prime Minister asked for an amnesty. He said: Is this not the time, is this not the opportunity, is this not the occasion when the Government could do the big thing? The answer was a bitter disappointment. The answer was a surprise to many. It was one which we did not expect. Frankly, I did not expect it, because I knew the circumstances and the nature, and some of the individuals who were suffering, and I did not expect it, because there never was a Government that had such a precedent for adopting the course suggested by my right hon. Friend.
I remember one of the earliest tasks with which the late Government were faced—one that we knew nothing about when we came into office entirely ignorant of the circumstances; but we found ourselves right up against a real difficulty. What was it? When the Irish Free State Act was passing through the House of Commons, supplementing, as it was, an agreement hurriedly made in the morning by a number of right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House as well as this side, it was found that, by a curious blunder, the light-
houses had been left out of the Agreement. No one had thought of the lighthouses. I am not blaming anyone; I am merely stating the bald, cold facts to the House, but the fact remained that, under the Irish Free State Treaty, the Government of that day had forgotten to take the necessary precautions vital to the defence of this country. Then we, as a Labour Government, were faced with this difficulty. Our military and naval advisers immediately came along and said, "This is a very serious situation, so serious that it must be decided at once." We were not responsible for it, and we had to face the situation. We said, "Certainly. It is a matter of paramount importance to the nation. It is vital to the future of the Empire. Whatever political views one may have, this is something we will deal with."
We took the responsibility of approaching the Irish Free State, and I myself asked President Cosgrave to meet me, and he realised the situation, but he put this proposition to me. "Yes," he said, "I realise your difficulty. I realise all that you are asking, but there are certain Irish prisoners in the English gaols for various offences. There is one in particular"—and I want my right hon. Friend on the opposite side of the House to draw an analogy between the two cases—"there is one in particular who came over here with Roger Casement, who landed on the shores of Ireland, and was caught with Roger Casement and was sentenced to death with him. The day was fixed for them to be hanged. A few days before, the Government, in their wisdom, thought that they would like to find out some information from this prisoner. They, accordingly, went to him, and obtained information from him, and promised him a free pardon." It is quite true that he deceived them—he lied to them. I quite admit that. I am not saying a word in defence of it, but the fact remained that he had received the promise of a pardon. What followed? The Irish Free State said, "We will negotiate with you, but we want an amnesty for our prisoners," and one of those prisoners included the accomplice, the partner, of Roger Casement, who was guilty of every crime that could possibly be urged against him. He had to be released under a general
amnesty, because it was in the interest of the country.
I ask any right hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House to try to picture the case of Arthur Jenkins, as it is possible for me to do who know him, who worked with him, who know all his life and record. I am making my appeal in the national interest. I am making an appeal, not for someone who can be put in the same category as a criminal who was released; but all Governments are faced with difficulties of this kind. I use that to illustrate the appeal I make. Here is a clear illustration drawn from my own experience. I would develop that point a little further. Right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House know perfectly well that when the Irish Free State was constituted, those who were engaged in the negotiations were bitter enemies for the moment, but immediately peace was declared, an amnesty was given to all prisoners, regardless of their offences.
On those grounds, I appeal to the Government to-night. I am not unmindful of this fact, that it may he said—and probably will be said—by the spokesman of the Government, that there are varying circumstances in these cases. I frankly admit it. I say frankly that there are people in gaol who ought not to be in gaol—per-fectly innocent people. There may be some for whom as strong a case cannot be made, but we do ask the Government at this time to realise that they have got a golden opportunity. In a few weeks we shall be approaching the festive season. In a few days this House will adjourn for Christmas. These people of whom I am thinking, whom I know Personally, ought not to be branded as criminals. I know their children, I know their wives. I know the Christmas they will spend. I want to make it a different Christmas, and the Government can make it a different Christmas. I do not speak in a provocative sense. If I were merely arguing against the Government's sins of omission or commission, it would be an entirely different speech that I would make. What I am concerned with is doing something for people whom I believe to be victims. I am speaking in this way because I believe that the Gov-
ernment have got this opportunity, and that, if they miss it, they will make a mistake. It is in that broad spirit that I make this appeal. I hope it will be understood that it is not in any party or provocative spirit that I am speaking. I am pleading for what I believe is the right course; I am pleading because I think it is in the interest of the country; I am pleading because I want peace in industry; and I am pleading because the Government have an opportunity, not only of doing the right thing, but of doing the big thing, and in the end the big thing always pays.

Mr. HARDIE: I know that personal cases have been ruled out of order, but I want to refer to a matter which I raised when this question was before the House on another occasion when I was refused an answer. I put two questions that day, one was ruled out of order, the other one I still believe to be in order. I put my questions in the ordinary way, and on drawing attention to the fact that they were not answered I got a snarl from the other side of the House. I am not quarrelling with that, but I want to know whether the Government can give any reason why Sir Hugh Bell, the coalowner, who suggested that the Prime Minister might do some shooting, was not thought to be a dangerous individual. May I now have an answer to that? There is also the case of the Noble Lord who suggested that we did not feed the Germans when we were at war with them, and in that way tried to incite the people of this country against the miners. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I would like to know if there are any reasons why no charge was made against Sir Hugh Bell when he made that statement on the 26th October, and why no charge was made against the Noble Lord.

Mr. SPEAK ER: That question does not seem to be relevant to the Motion.

Mr. PALING: There is one question I would like to put to the Attorney-General. In answer to a question one day this week the Secretary for Mines stated that the ban on the export of coal from Hull and from other East Coast ports was being lifted—or was lifted to a certain degree. I understand from the speech of the Attorney-General to-night that one of the Regulations
which is being kept on deals with this question, and I want to know how far the ban on the export of coal exists at the moment. I am asking because when I was in the Doncaster coalfield at the week-end, some of the big pits in that coalfield, which exports a lot of coal through East coast ports, were standing idle. One of the causes was lack of trucks, but I see by the papers this week that some of the big pits in that neighbourhood have been standing idle, not only through lack of trucks, but also, it is stated, through lack of orders. I do not know whether that is so; I am merely stating what I read in the papers; but it has struck me, as there is a partial ban on the export of coal, that that might have something to do with it. There must be plenty of coal in this country if there are no orders for the pits, and if the lifting of the export ban will allow these pits to get orders and to work full time, I think it is only reasonable to ask that the ban should be removed.

Mr. LAWSON: As one who raised the question of an amnesty a few days ago, I want to say, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), that I was very much surprised to hear the answer to the appeal that was made yesterday, because I am sure hon. Members on this side are representing not only the views of the working classes of the country, but of all who wish well to the country in the days to come. We ourselves know cases affecting men of the highest character, men who have been occupying responsible public positions, men, sometimes, of rare understanding. Out of a sense of duty those men have often gone into a crowd in order to help to keep the peace, to help the police in their duty, to help to restrain the people. There are men in prison who are of the most peaceful disposition; they took risks to help to keep the peace and because of that, and because, being representative men in their district, they were well known, they are to-day in prison, and apparently, as far as the Government are concerned, they have to remain there. I also raised another matter on that occasion. I see that Regulation 14 is to be left in.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think we can discuss Regulation 14, because that would be discussing over again what the House decided on the 29th October.

Mr. LAWSON: I understand that number 14 is one of the Regulations left in.

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, it is, but we are not continuing that Regulation on the present occasion.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I hope the response made to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) will be entirely satisfactory, and I say this without any regard to the view of the aggressive section, the extremists, that unless there is compliance with this appeal the effect will be to intensify the operations of that section, which will seek to impress the men with the idea that they ought to prepare for much more aggressive activities than in the past. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is the season when one would naturally expect good will, and in view of the effective illustration given by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope the Government will rise to the occasion and send a message of pardon to those men who are, for the most part, men of good standing and representative of the mining section and among the best types of the working class that we have.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): With regard to what has been said about the ban on export coal, there has been no such ban on export coal for some days. As a, matter of fact, there is absolute freedom to export coal. It was necessary to protect the home supplies of coal, but all the restrictions have now been entirely removed except in the case of anthracite coal and coke, and I hope to remove those restrictions as from midnight on Sunday next.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I say at once that I do not think anybody on this side of the House, or any member of the Government, can complain of the tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who made a very powerful appeal. I am sure that the House and the right hon. Gentleman wilt acquit me of any desire to shirk answering the question which has been put to me, if I say that until I heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech I neither knew that the matter was to be raised, nor that on the Motion before the House it could be raised. In moving this Motion, although I am in charge
of the Debate this evening, I do not represent the Home Secretary in the discharge of his function of advising His Majesty with regard to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will understand that if I were to attempt to make any real answer to his appeal, I should run the risk, on the one band, of perhaps raising false hopes which might hereafter be disappointing, or, on the other hand, of being what I do not desire to be, unduly provocative or disappointing to those who have made the appeal.
I can and, of course, I will convey in the best way I can to the Secretary of State for India who has to discharge this function the appeal which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and which has been reinforced by other hon. Members who have spoken. In promising to convey that appeal I want to make it quite clear that I can give no sort of promise that any such general pardon as has been indicated will in fact be granted. I know of no change in the policy of the Government from the attitude which was taken up by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to a question put yesterday, and indeed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is in a better position than I am in regard to this matter, because he and some of his colleagues had an opportunity of n. discussing the matter with the Secretary of State himself. I was not present, and I do not know what took place at that interview; neither have I any reason to believe that any modification of the attitude taken up yesterday has been decided upon. I do not want, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal in most conciliatory terms, to introduce any element of possible harshness into the discussion of this matter, which I am not competent to determine myself. On the other hand, I am anxious that nothing I should say can be interpreted to lead hon. Members opposite to a conclusion which might turn out to be disappointing. I hope they will acquit me of any discourtesy for not making any further response to their appeal. I must confine myself to safe ground on an occasion of this kind, and
I say that the speeches made will undoubtedly be conveyed to the Secretary of State for India (acting in the absence of the Home Secretary) for the consideration of the Cabinet.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. THOMAS: It is only fair for me to say right away that we did give notice of our intention to bring forward this question. We believed that on the Motion which has been moved by the Attorney-General to-night it would be in order to review, not individual cases but to treat in a general way the question which I introduced. We certainly had no intention of taking the Government by surprise. On the contrary, we acquainted the Government of our intention, and it was made perfectly clear. It was perfectly well known that we were going to raise this question, and I naturally assumed that the spokesman of the Government would be acquainted with that fact. It was understood, and I came specially down to make this appeal, clearly understanding that the Government knew about it. We are not concerned with debating points or procedure, but we are concerned in doing something in the case for which I have been pleading. I quite understand the difficulty in which the Attorney-General is placed. It is perfectly true that an interview has taken place, but it is equally true that there is grave public alarm on this question. Of course I do not expect anything further from the Attorney-General, but I want him to convey what has been expressed here to-night to the Government, and I hope my appeal will not have been made in vain. The Government must clearly understand the anxiety of the nation on this question and we shall continue to use our Parliamentary efforts to raise this question. I hope to-night's discussion will not harden the situation, or close the door, and we shall have to be content now with the answer of the Attorney-General.

Resolved,
That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 2nd day of December 1926, shall continue in force subject however to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the Act.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Brighton and Hove General Gas Company, which was presented on the 11th November and published, be approved."—[Sir B. Chadwick.]

Captain BENN: I think some Minister in charge of this Department should be present to answer for this Order, and as no representative of the Department concerned is present, I should like to ask if I should be in order in moving that the consideration of this Order be adjourned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): We tried to make arrangements with the Opposition to take another Bill, and this Order has come on earlier than was expected. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member objects, we will not press this Order.

Captain BENN: I have not the least desire to hold up the work, but there is a certain respect which is due to the House from members of the Government, and for an Under-Secretary to bring up an Order which is in charge of a public Department is not respectful to the
House. It is due to the House that some notice should be taken of this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter that lies in my hands. Does the hon. and gallant Member desire to move the Adjournment of the Debate?

Captain BENN: No.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Gloucester Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 15th November and published, be approved."—[Sir B. Chadwick.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Ten o'Clock.